Hliljiiilll  III  ilil 


liiiiiiiiiii: 


:iiiiiiiilllti:^Y})llT' 


liiiiiilili 


N   M     ^4-     •' 


hiUiill  iliinmii 


W 


AP 


T39i83. 
/84V 


^ 

CL 

;^ 

i 

.^ 

_ra 

,^ 

CL 

^ 

.i^^ 

^ 

:             1 

-r        ¥i 

Ql 

i^ 

M- 

g)        ^ 

o 

ts 

$ 

^    s 

c 

o.           O 

bfl 

• 

*S             Eh 

•< 

^ 

l^            g 

3 

^ 

s 

,to 

<-»                M 

CJ 

^         M 

(/) 

•S- 

^           P4 

2 

O 

>~, 

^ 

.a 

^ 

^ 

-a 

^" 

% 

■•-• 

c 

C 

vi 

(U 

^ 

^. 

^ 

CL 

CONVERSATION 


BETWEEN  TWO  LAYMEN, 


ON    THE    SUBJECTS    AND    MODE    OF 


CHRISTIAN   BAPTISM 


CHURCH  COMMUNION, 


FORMING    A    COMPLETE    MANUAL. 


BY  CHAS.  H.^ENDIiETON, 

MEMBKR  op  the   first  baptist  church,  CLEVELAND. 


Let  truth  srapple  with  error  ;  who  ever  knew  truth  worsted  in  a  frer.  ami  open 
encounter? — Milton. 

"Buy  the  truth,  and  sell  it  not."— "Truth  needs  no  apc'ogy,  and  error  deserves  none.-' 
"Earnestly  contend  for  tlie  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints." 


CLEVELAND ; 


goLD  BY  SANFORD  &  CO.,  <leveland,  O.  ;  A.  S   MADDOX,  Richmond,  Va. 

GOULD,  KENDALL  &  LINCOLN,  and  the  N.  E.  S.  SCHOOL  UNION 

DLPOSITORY,  Boston;  GEO.  P.  DANIELS,  Providence,  R.  L 

Am.  Bap.  Pub.  S.  S.  Depository,  Phil.  ;  J.  Barker,  N.  Y. 

A.ND  Bennet,  Backus  &  Hawley,  Utica,  N.  Y. 

1841. 


Entered  according  to  act  of  Congress,  by 

CHAS.  H.  PENDLETON, 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  of  Ohio, 


R  ECOiaM  END  AT  iOJfS. 

{From  the  Rev.  Levi  Tucker,  A.  M.  Pastor  of  the  First  Baptisl  Church, . 
Cleveland.^  ^ 

C.  H.  Pendleton.  .  ,  - 

Dear  Brother:  V\'.    ',       C- 

I  have  examined  with  much  interest  and  profit,  vourMahudl  onlfaptisin  jjjid  Com- 
munion, and  am  convinced  in  my  own  mind,  tliat  it  is  destiued.tojdo  mucli  good.  Al- 
though tliere  has  been  much  written,  and  many  volumrs  ere  now  before  tht^  pubUc  on 
the  subject,  yet  there  is  siili,  upon  this  most  expressive  and  iniportaiit  ordimmgc,  a  vast 
amount  of  ignorance  in  the  Christian  church.  It  is  therefore  clearly  the  duty  of  the 
Baptists,  in  the  exercise  of  Christian  chi'.rily,  to  give  their  erring  brctiircn  "tine  upon 
line,  and  precept  upon  precept,"  and  exhort  them  to  "  make  straight  paths  for  their  feet, 
lest  that  which  is  lame  he  turned  out  of  the  way."  Your  references  to  classic  usage, 
and  quotations  from  the  Fathfrs,  and  from  modern  Pedoliaptlsts,  triuni)  hantly  an- 
swer all  objections,  and  completely  settles  the  fact,  that  believers  are  the  only  suljects, 
and  immersion  the  only  mode  of  gospel  baptism.  Your  reasoning  upon  the  subject 
from  the  "  usus  loquendl"  of  the  terms  employed  in  the  ordinanee  of  baptism,  is  irre- 
fragable.—Infant  sprinkling  is  most  unquestionably  the  very  foundation  and  pillar  of 
Popery,  designed  to  be  the  great  link  to  connect  church  and  state,  in  order  to  form  a 
NATIONAL  RELIGION,  and  SO  to  unitcthc  kingdom  of  li-^ht  with  the  kingdom  of  darkness, 
as  to  form  a  misty  twilight,  iti  the  dimness  of  which,  things  doubtful  and  anti-scrip- 
tural should  appear  to  be  ''  confirmation  strong  as  proofs  of  holy  writ." 

I  believe  it  must  and  will  api)ear  to  every  candid  reader  of  your  excellent  Manuel, 
that  infant  subjects,  and  a  sprinkling  mode  of  gospel  baptism,  were  alike  unauthorized 
by  Jesus  Christ  or  his  apostles,  and  unknown  in  the  first  centuries  of  the  church,  and 
are,  by  whom  ever  practised,  the  certain  badges  of  their  descent  from  the  "  Mistress  of 
Babylon,"  the  ''Mother  Church." 

Your  views  of  communion,  I  think  equally  clear  and  conclusive.  Whoever  wishes 
to  become  fully  acquainted  with  the  objections  conmionly  urged  against  the  Baptists, 
upon  the  subjects  of  baptism  and  the  communion,  will  see  them  fairly  stated,  and  most 
clearly  refuted,  in  this  work.  ISo  Baptist  can  rise  from  a  perusal  of  it,  without  feel- 
ing fully  convinced  in  his  own  mind,  that  his  sentiments,  as  a  Baptist,  are  a  part  o( 
that  immutable  truth,  "which  shall  abide  and  live  forever." 

It  gives  me  very  great  pleasure,  to  recommend  this  work  to  the  Christian  public^ 
hoping  and  praying  that  it  may  prove  a  "light  to  the  feet,  and  a  lamp  to  the  path" 
of  every  humble  and  sincere  inquirer  after  truth. 

LEVI  TUCKER, 

Cleveland,  June  28,  1S40. 


[JFVom  the  Rev.  Joseph  Elliott,  A  M.  late  Principal  of  Middlebury  Academyi 

Wyoming,  N.  F.] 

Charles  H.  Pendleton,  Esq. 
Dear  Brother : 

I  have  read  much  on  the  subject  discussed  in  your  pamphlet,  which  you  had  the 
politeness  to  allow  me  the  pleasure  hastily  to  peruse,  but  have  seen  nothing  embracing 
the  merits  of  the  subject,  so  well  adapted  to  do  good  to  the  common  reader,  and  yet  in- 


fctrnct  the  cLASsiCAt  scholar,  as  your  work  on  "  Christian  Baptii^m  and  Church  Fel- 
lowship," The  great  excellency  of  your  work  consists  in  placing  the  arguments  pro 
and  con  in  juxtaposition,  in  plain  conversation  between  the  Baptist  and  Pedobaptist, 
allowing  each  an  equally  fair  opportunity  to  present  his  strongest  proof  to  support  his 
own  side  of  the  question,  and  to  ask  his  opponent  all  the  explanations  of  his  belief, 
that  the  nature  of  the  discussion  might  suggest.  I  am  also  pleased  to  find  that,  although 
much  has  been  wrif^en  on  the  subjects  by  the  ablest  pens,  you  have  presented  no  small 
amount  of  original  matter  of  the  best  kind,  to  enrich  the  minds  of  even  our  best  read 
men  on  the  subji-ct.  It  gives  me  no  small  pleasure  to  ndd,  that  the  whole  work  is  con- 
ducted in  a  spirit  of  Christian  kindness,  which  never  fails  to  sweeten  the  cup  of  con- 
troversy, on  all  subjects  relating  to  our  htly  religion.  It  gives  me  the  highest  gratifica- 
tion to  know,  that  the  author  is  a  Layman,  the  first,  to  my  knowledge,  who  has  written 
with  any  considerable  ability  on  the  subject. 

I  dsvoutly  hope,  that  every  person,  in  search  of  truth  and  Christian  ordinances, 
will  read  and  profit  by  a  wide  circulation  of  your  excellent  Manuel. 

Yours  in  the  LorJ, 

JOSEPH  ELLIOTT. 

Clevelane,  July,  1S40. 


N.  B.  It  is  proper  to  slate  here,  that  when  I  commenced  writing  this  vv-ork,  it  was  my 
intention  to  spread  out  before  the  rcadi-r,  the  most  prominent  arguments  of  Baptists 
and  Pedobaptists,  on  this  controverted  subject,  in  the  form  of  a  tract;  but,  as  Bunyan 
remarked,  with  reference  lo  his  Pilgrim's  Progress, 

"  Still  as  I  pulled,  it  came,  and  so  I  penned 

It  down,  until  it  came  at  last  to  be. 

For  lengtli  and  breadth,  the  big?iess  which  you  see." 

Author. 


E  B3,  K  A  T  A  . 

Page  3d,  1st  line,  for  tract  re.ad  convehsation  ;  14th  line  from  bottom,  for  treaties 
iread  treatise.  Page  5tli,  the  word  place  should  not  be  italicised.  Page  11th,  11th 
line  from  top,  for  faith  and  discipleship  read  faiih  or  diseipleship.  Page  13,  2d  line 
from  top,  for  tract  nad  conversation.  I'uge  15,  bottom  line,  for  his  liousehold  read 
HIS  OWN  liouseliold.  P.  16,  7Ui  line  from  bottom,  leave  out  that.  P.  17,  for  (Acts  v.) 
read  (Acts  IS);  ICth  and  17th  line  from  bottom,  for  "male  children  and  adults"  read 
Males.  P.  24,  No:e,  4ih  line,  for  "tlieir  uses"  read  "tlieie  uses;"  6th  line,  for  "you 
represent"  read  '"you  represents."  P.  25,  5th  line  from  lop,  for  "or  those"  read  "and 
those."  P.  30,  4th  line,  for  Zenophen  read  Xcnophon;  5th  line,  lor  Polybus  read  Poly- 
bius.  P.  33,  Crysostom  should  be  spelled  Chrysostom— in  one  or  twoother  instances 
it  is  spelled  Wrong,  In  a  note  by  Dr.  Campbell,  for  "ex  ton"  read  "ek  tou."  P.  35  7th 
line  froni  bottom,  for  "goes"  read  "go."  P.  36,  7th  line  from  lou  for  "nietnnoieo"  read 
"metanreo."  P.  37,  17lh  1  ne,  for  "literally"  read  "liberally."'  P.  38,  8ih  and  9th  line" 
from  top,  instead  of  Ah-L'cny  read  Alleg;:ny,  and  Gibraller  "read  Gibratar.  P.  42,  for 
"esniimrcts"  ic;id  "sintinu  nts."  P  43,  4tii  line  in  small  type,  for  Svrac  read  Syriac, 
and  Hervy  should  be  Hervcy.  P.  45,  in  thr  testimony  of  T.  rtullian  for  "tingui'"'  read 
"tingi;"  6th  line  from  bottom,  for  "True  immersi(,n"  read  "Tilne  immersion."  P.  46, 
for  Olshanson  read  OI?liaus(;n.  P. 47,  neartln-  middle,  f>>r  "diner  baptism"  read  "clinic 
baptism."  P.  48,  8th  line  from  top,  for  "The  reader"  read  "You."  P.  51,  23d  line,  for 
"space"  read  "time."  P.  53,  5th  line,  for  '  solicituoiis,"  read  "soliritons;"  lOlli,  11th, 
and  2Uth  lines,  for  "baptizontia"  read  "baptizontai."  P.  66,  14ih  line,  for  "this"  read 
"their."  P.  FO,  15th  line  for  "refuses"  read  "refesed;"  21st  line,  for  "unto"  read 
"into."  Page  i'2,  5th  line  from  top,  for  Henry  retid  Hervey;  2d  line  of  Note,  for  "All 
of  the  valuable"  read  "And  so  all  of  the  valuable."  P.  1(!6,  4th  line  from  top,  for  "as" 
read  "thus."    P.  124,  bottom  line,  for  "polite"  read  "polity." 


PREFACE. 


In  publishing  this  tract,  it  is  far  from  the  intentions  of  the  writer  to  excito  unkind  feel- 
ings between  the  members  of  different  denominations,  or  to  weaken  the  bands  of  Christian 
love  and  affection,  which  spiritually  unite  all  who  love  our  Savior.  But  it  is  to  invite  all 
to  the  fresh  examination  of  a  subject,  which  has  already  received  some  attention  in  almost 
every  Christian  community,  and  which  is  destined  to  receive  mucli  more,  ere  all  the  disci- 
ples of  Christ  shall  "see  eye  to  eye," — to  awaken,  if  possible,  adeeper  reverence  for  the 
authority  of  the  Bible,  and  all  the  commands  of  Christ.  For  we  believe  when  all  christians 
come  up  to  the  requirements  of  Christ,  a  visible  union  will  then  take  place.  And.  as 
we  believe  the  "  Baptists  are  more  nearly  conformed  in  doctrine  and  rites  to  the  model  of 
the  primitive  churches,  tlian  any  otherdeuomination,"  it  follows  that  ifwe  labor  to  advance 
THEIR  SENTIMENTS,  it  hecomcs  identical  with  laboring  for  the  welfare  and  promotion  of 
Christ's  kingdom.  WhUe  I  readily  admit  that  many,  who  differ  from  us  with  respect  to 
these  doctrines  and  rites,  are  among  the  excellent  of  the  earth,  I  cannot,  out  of  mere  res- 
pect to  them,  abstain  from  vindicating  the  institutions  of  Christ.  This  would  be  to  sho\7 
a  greater  deference  to  man  than  God.  "  Every  plant,"  says  Jesus,  "  that  my  heavenly 
father  hath  not  planted,  mustbc  rooted  up."  To  permit  then  the  traditions  op  mkn  to 
pasi  for  theordinancks  of  God,  v/ithout  any  attempt  to  produce  a  reformation  to  primi- 
tive practice,  would  be  to  disobey  the  injunction, — "  Contend  earnestly  for  the  faith  onca 
delivered  to  the  Saints." 

The  importance  of  union  among  Christians  is  ackowlcdged  by  all ;  and  we  trust  wo 
ehall  be  enabled  to  show  that  there  is  ground  on  which  nil  evangelical  christians  can  unite, 
even  at  the  celebration  of  the  I-ord's  Supper,  and  that  too  without  sacrificing  any  prin- 
ciple. Now  if  such  ground  as  this  can  be  found, and  any  evangelical  christian  denomination 
ia  unwilling  to  occupy  it,  then  it  follows  that  th»t  denomination  prefers  disunion  to 
union — restricted  church  communion  to  the  general  communion  of  the  Godly. 

Many  are  dissuaded  from  the  examination  of  this  subject  by  being  told  that  it  is  non- 
essential, or,  "  by  considering  it  as  a  thing  of  small  moment,  and  that  time  is  better  spent 
in  schemes  of  general  usefulness.  That  Baptism  is  a  thing  of  small  moment,  isanopiniou 
that  is  not  likely  to  have  been  suggested  by  the  accounts  of  it  in  the  Scriptures.  It  is  an 
ordinance  that  strikingly  represents  the  truth  that  saves  the  soul;  and  is  peremptorily 
enjoined  on  all  who  believe.  But  were  it  the  very  least  of  all  the  commandments  of 
Jesus,  it  demands  attention  and  obedience  at  tlie  hazard  of  life  itself.  Nothing  that  Christ 
has  appointed  can  be  innocently  neglected.  To  suppose  that  schemes  of  general 
usefulness  ought  to  take  place  of  the  commandments  of  God,  "  is  a  direct  reflection  on  the 
wisdom  of  Jehovah. 
We  are  willing, reader,aftersaying  on  each  side  of  this  question  whatwedeem  apposite, to 
leave  it  with  you  to  judge  for  your  self.  But  we  would  "  remind  you  that  your  judgment 
will  influence  your  practice,  and  that  will  be  examined,  and  the  consequences  of  it  will  be 
yours  in  eternity. 

■' Two  things  we  wish  you  to  believe.  One  is.  That  trctii  will  be  honorable,  when 
KRROR  shall  be  made  ashamed.  The  other  is.  That  truth  embraced  and  truth  practiced  is 
the  road  to  heaven,  and  'the  wisest  course  on  earth." 

The  author  of  this,  several  years  since,  examined  this  subject.  During  that  investiga- 
tion, which  produced  the  distinct  conviction  in  his  own  mind  that  the  Bajitisls  stood  on 
the  vantage  ground  of  truth,  he  read  some  of  the  ablest  works  on  both  sides  of  this  con- 
troversy, lie  has  also  made  himself  acquainted  with  the  more  recent  works  of  note  on  this 
subject,  (issued  from  the  American  press.)  To  what  extent  he  is  indebted  for  the  views 
contained  in  this  pamphlet  to  the  above  examinations,  it  would  be  impossible  for  him  to 
tell.  Wherever  he  has  copied  from  any  work  he  has  used  the  quotation  marks.  Whila 
presenting  his  own  views  on  this  subject,  he  has  availed  himselfof  the  labors  of  others, 
and  has  endeavored,  with  candor  and  fairness,  to  state  and  examine  briefly  some  of  the 
most  prominent  arguments  of  those  who  have  written  on  the  other  side.  ForsoMP  of  the 
ideas  contained  in  this  pamphlet,  the  author  freely  acknowledges  that  he  is  indebted  to 
Prof.  Jewett's  recent  work,  to  Lynd's,  and  Carson's  treaties,  and  to  the  Christian  Review, 
edited  by  Prof.  Sears,  &c.  The  opinions  of  the  German  critics,  and  the  examination  of 
the  ancient  Fathers,  have  been  derived  mostly  from  the  Review,  a  very  able  quarterly 
work  published  in  Boston,  which  every  Baptist  who  can,  ought  to  take. 

The  object  of  this  publication  is  not  so  much  to  instruct  the  learned,  as  it  is  to  lead  the 
humble  inquirer  after  truth  into  the  clear  understanding  of  the  word  of  God. 

Having  been  requested,  while  at  the  east,  to  write  a  tract  on  this  subject,  the  hope  of 
usefulne.«9  alone  has  at  last  induced  the  author  to  comply  with  that  request.  It  is  with 
extreme  reluctance  that  he  consents  to  publish  this  in  so  imperfect  a  state.  The  only 
apology  he  has  to  make  is,  that  it  was  written  in  great  haste,  and  in  detached  portions  of 
time.     (The  most  of  his  time  being  otherwise  occupied.) 

With  a  sincere  desire  that  this  humble  effort  may  remove  prejudice  and  advance  the 
cause  of  troth,  a.nd  CamaTLiN  unio.v,  the  author  commits  it  to  the  great  Headoftbo 
Church, 


INTRODUCTION 


'.'  It  is  reported  to  have  been  said  by  Coleridge,  '  there  is  the  love  of  the  g^ood  for  tha 
good's  suke,  and  the  love  of  the  truth  for  tlie  truth's  sake.  To  see,  clearly',  that  the  lovo 
of  the  good  and  tlie  true  is  ultimately  identical, — is  given  only  to  those  who  love  both  sin- 
eerely,  and  without  any  foreign  ends.'  Alas!  how  often  have  they  been  disjoined!  Ou 
the  one  side,  how  many  have  been  disposed  to  promote  what  is  good,  at  the  expense  of 
truili  ;  and,  ou  the  otiier,  how  nniny,  in  promoting  the  cause  of  truth,  have  sacrificed 
what  is  good,  and  clothed  themselves  with  the  sjjirit  of  bitterness  and  strife  as  w  ith  a  gar- 
ment !  A  visible  aud  acknowledged  union  among  all  Christians  is  a  great  good — '  a  con- 
summalioa  devoutly  to  be  wished,' — buthow  is  it  to  be  accomplished?  Most  certainly,  not 
by  denunciation  or  silence  ;  not  by  truces  and  conipromises,b3'  legislation  or  acts  of  diplu- 
i;!:icj' ;  but  it  must  be  done,  if  done  at  all,  by  each  seeking  truth  with  an  honest  heart, 
actaiif  according  to  it  aud  speaking  it  ln  love.  Christian  uuion  can  flourish  in  no  other 
soil,  but  a  'KNOWi^EDGE  OF  T!IE  TRUTH.'  '  If  We  Walk  in  the  light,  as  he  is  in  the  light, 
we  have  fellowship  one  with  another.'  Wlioever  seeks  trutli  from  the  love  of  it,  and  in 
love  endeavors  to  diffuse  it,  does  sonictiiing  to  promote  the  real  unity  of  the  church. 
For,  even  if  he  adopts  some  incidental  error,  the  spirit  of  his  mind  will  lead  him  to  receive 
fresh  light  with  thankfulness,  and  tlius  trutli  will  gain  the  greater  triumph.  As  far  as 
diJferout  sects  of  Christians  are  already  agreed  on  essential  truths,  so  far  it  becomes  them 
to  clisrish  for  each  otiier,  as  Christians,  a  fervent  fellowship.  If  we  have  '  one  Lord,  ono 
Faiih,  one  God  and  leather  of  ail,'  even  though  we  have  not  '  one  baptism,'  we  ought  to 
lovs  eacii  other,  with  pure  hearts  fervently.  In  suc'u  a  case,  we  have  already  laid  tlie 
basis  fora  cordial  union  of  spirit,  and  through  obedience  to  the  truth  have  purified  our 
souls  unto  ujifeig:ued  love  of  the  brethren. 

'i'he  dilfereiice  of  opinion  between  the  Baptists  and  other  evangelical  Christiaps,  is  not  so 
much  touching  the  spiritual  doctrines  of  the  church,  as  ijs  constitution.  Tlicy  do  already, 
if  tliey  breathe  the  spirit  of  their  system,  hold  spiritual  communion  with  all  who  love 
Christ, — the  same  kind  of  communion  whicli  will  prevail  in  heaven,  where  the  state  of 
society  will  nut  require  any  tangible  memorials,  to  transmit  from  age  to  age  the  remem- 
brance of  the  Savior's  death.  But  thoy  diifeV  from  other  Christians  on  this  question  :  What 
is  essential  to  the  right  constitution  of  the  Christian  church  1  They  set  out  with  the 
great  principle,  that  none  but  moral  agents,  who  act  from  choice,  are  proper  subjects  of 
church  uieniliershlp  or  church  ordinances.  Thej'  not  oulj'  say,  with  others,  that  tha 
church  is  a  spiritual  association,  aud  that  Its  constitution  is  not  national,  hut  thence  infer 
thtit  none  are  brought  into  ailinncewiih  it  by  natural  birth,  or  blood,or  parental  dedication. 
Thev  hold,  with  John  F^ocke,  that  '  a  church  is  a  free  and  voluutary  societj';  nobody  is  born 
a  member  of  any  church;  otherw"i3C,the  religion  of  parents  would  descend  unto  children  by 
the  same  right  of  inheritance  as  their  temporal  estates,  aud  every  one  would  hold  his  faith 
by  the  same  tenure  as  he  does  his  lands.'  They  deny,  that  there  is  any  power  inherent  or 
conferred,  in  outward  rites,  to  bring  a  human  being  into  covenant  with  God.  Hence,  they 
withhold  the  initiating  rite  of  Chri.stianily  from  all,  except  those  who  profess  repentance  for 
sin  and  faith  in  Christ.  These  principles  they  deem  ofhisrh  importance,  aud  value  aright 
constitution  of  the  church,  not  only  because  it  is  best  adapted  to  preserve  the  purity  of  her 
.doctrines,  but  bpca\isu  it  bears  upon  it  the  sacred  seal  of  God's  authority. 

To  ilicse  principles  they  ask  the  attention  of  the  world.  They  say,  let  them  ho  examin- 
iiied  by  their  own  liglit,  and  the  light  of  revelation.  The  very  announcement  of  them  is 
adapted  to  carry  a  conviction  of  respousibilitj'  to  every  man's  bosom,  aud  to  lead  each  to. 
think  and  act  for  himself,  feeling,  that  while  he  lives  in  impenitence,  he  hplds  no  special 
relation  to  God,  ou  which  his  conscience  can  repose.  Thev  think,  that  tliese  principles 
arc  the  same  as  those  preached  by  the  Apostles,  the  same  as  those  held  in  different  ag-es  by 
various  commuuilies  of  Ciiristians,  w'no  acknowledged  not  thi!  dominion  of  the  Kumish  . 
church;  the  same  as  those  niaiiitained  by  their  own  Roger  Williams,  the  champion  of  reli- 
gious liberty,  who  sought  to  secure  tiiem  an  asvlum  on  the  shores  of  Rhode  Island,  amid 
winter's  cold  and  tempcit's  blasts,  aud  persecution  still  more  relentless  than  a  winter's 
uky,  or  't!ie  pelting  of  the  pitiless  storm.'  Though  they  are  more  clearly  seen  aud  hon- 
ored now  than  they  were  fornjally,  yet  they  remain  too  much  in  the  shade.  If  they  shall 
.■ever  be  brought  fully  out  to  ligiit,  and  allowed  their  legitimate  sway,  we  believe  that  .era 
.willlte  theproL'iir^or  of  thii  miivorsit!  triuiaph  of  primitive  Ci(ristianity."-7HAGUE. 


f 

V 


\ 


A  FAMILIAR  COxWERSATION 


BAPTISM  AND  COMMUNION. 


Baptist. — Good  morning,  my  dear  brother.  It  is  with  muck 
pleasure  I  am  permitted  to  meet  you.  Wallt  in  and  take  a  seat. 
*  *  *  1  observed  you  at  our  meeting  last  evening.  How 
were  you  interested  in  the  exercises  ? 

Pedohaptist. — Very  much.  The  liberal  manner  in  which 
the  meeting  was  conducted,  aflbrded  me  much  pleasure.  It 
was  trul}^  interesting,  to  see  the  members  of  diflerent 
evangelical  denominations,  take  part  in  the  exercises.  It  was 
an  emblem  of  what  I  anticipate  will  take  place  in  Heaven. — 
After  1  returned  home  last  evening,  while  meditating  upon  the 
Christian  catholic  feelings,  which  wereea,'e/«p/j/?e(/ by  the  mevn. 
bers  of  your  church,  in  the  conference  room,  1  was  reminded  of 
the  hard  names,  and  opprobious  epithets,  which  have  been  so 
profusely  poured  out  upon  your  denomination.  And  I  invol. 
untarily  said  to  myself,  is  it  possible,  that  a  denomination,  so 
liberal  and  social  in  their  meetings,  are  as  bigoted,  unchristian, 
and  illiberal  in  their  views,  as  they  have  been  represented. 
May  it  not  be,  after  all,  that  these  statements  are,  in  a  great 
measure,  exaggeration.  And  then  I  resolved,  that  in  the  morn- 
ing I  would  avail  myself  of  the  opportunity  to  call  on  you,  and 
hear  what  you  might  have  to  say  in  defence  of  yf)ur  "  sect," 
which  I  presume  you  are  conscious  is  "  every  ichere  spoken 
against."  Now,  if  you  are  not  engaged  this  morning,  I  should 
like  to  converse  with  you  on  your  distinguishing  sentiments, 
and  endeavor  to  ascertain  how  far  our  views  harmonize,  and 
the  precise  points  in  which  we  differ  with  regard  to  our  religious 
tenets. 


6 

Baptist. — As  I  have  no  engai^rements  this  morning,  it  will 
aflbrd  mc  pleasure  to  sit  down  with  you  and  canvass  our  views 
and  sentiments,  and  scan  them  by  the  Word  of  (Jod — the  Law 
and  the  Testimony.  And  here.  I  would  remark,  that  if  we  io- 
tend  to  ascertain  what  is  truth — what  the  Bible  teaches,  it  is  of 
the  utmost  importance  that  v.'e  lay  aside  thcpride  of  intellect, 
ail  party  zeal,  every  favorite  preconceived  opinion,  and  "the 
v/isdom  of  this  world,"  and  approach  the  Sacred  Word,  not 
v/ith  the  torch  of  human  philosophy,  saying  what  is  consistent 
or  inconsistent  with  reason  ; — not  with  a  dictatorial  spirit,  say- 
ing what  it  ought  to  teach  and  what  it  ought  not  teach ;  but 
with  "  our  minds  characterized  by  that  childlike  humility,  so 
beautifully  described"  by  our  Savior,  and  so  sacredly  enjoined 
as  an  indispensable  prerequisite  to  the  reception  of  truth ;  and 
in  the  absence  of  which,  no  man  can  even  hope  to  enter  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.  In  this  respect,  the  same  laws  govern  the 
natural,  as  the  moral  world.  Thus  itv/as  with  Sir  Isaac  New. 
ton,  when  his  mind  was  clothed  with  childlike  simplicity,  "  na- 
ture held  communion  with  him  as  with  a  favorite  son."  To 
him  she  unfolded  the  laws  that  govern  the  material  world,  "and, 
taking  hitn  by  the  hind,  she  led  him  over  the  wide  expanse  of 
universal  being."  In  like  manner,  Jesus  Christ  "reveals  him- 
self to  hhn  who  is  of  a  humble  and  a  contrite  spirit,"  "  as  he 
does  not  to  the  world  ;"  and  "opens  his  eyes  to  behold  won. 
drous  thin.t>s  out  of  hisLaw."  Now,  would  we  discover  the 
laws  that  Jesus  (Ihrist  has  instituted  for  the  constitution  and 
government  of  his  church,  it  is  evident  that  the  speculations  of 
genius  and  philosophy  must  give  place  to  that  deep  humility  of 
heart,  which  alone  will  induce  us  to  search  the  Sacred  Oracles 
with  a  diligent,  prayerful  spirit,  asking  wisdom  of //i?«,  "in 
whom  are  hid  all  its  tre;isures,"  (and  who  has  promised  to  be- 
stow it  liberally  on  all  who  ask  for  it,)  that  we  may,  in  this 
prescribed  manner,  be  enabled  to  discover  the  mind  and  7vill  of 
Christ  ;  and  obtain  that  disposition  of  heart  which  will  lead 
us  to  "  walk  in  all  His  commandments  and  ordinances  blame- 
less."  In  this  manner  may  we  hope  to  obtain  that  blessing, 
which  is  pronounced  upon  those  "  who  follow  the  Lamb  whith- 
ersoever he  goeth." 

"  This,  as  I  presume  you  are  aware,  is  not  a  subject  of  trifling 
importance,  inasmuch  as  it  involves  the  purity  and  prosperity 
of  the  church,  designed  by  our  Lord  to  represent  his  kingdom 
here  on  eartii, — to  exhibit  to  the  world  something  of  its  order 
and  harmony,  and  the  purity  and  excellency  of  its  principles, 
and  instrumeutally  to  carry  forward  his  designs  of  mercy,  uu- 


til  his  name  and  his  praise  shall  ba  one  in  all  the  earth."  Here, 
let  ic  b3  remembered,  that  Infinite  Wisdom  has  in  no  sense  in- 
vested  man  with  a  discretionary  power,  which  authorizes  him  to 
alter  any  of  the  laws,  iiistiluted  by  Christ  for  the  constitution 
and  government  of  His  church,  Hrs  spiritual  kingdom  on 
earth,  however  celebrated  he  may  be  for  learning',  or  eminent  for 
piety. 

Let  us  both  pledge  ourselves  to  each  other,  and  to  Him  who 
died  for  us,  that  we  will  submit  our  sentiments  and  views  to 
the  oracles  of  Divine  Truth,  fully  determined  in  the  strength  of 
the  Lord  that  we  will  renounce  every  sentiment,  that  is  not  in 
conformity  to  the  requirements  of  Christ,  let  it  cost  whatever 
self-denial  it  may.  Should  we  finally  be  so  happy  as  to  enter  heav- 
en, probably  we  shall  then  see  things  as  they  are,  "  which  is  tho 
sublimest  thing  in  nature."  We  shall  then  receive  no  satisfac- 
tion  in  discovering,  that  we  permitted  "our  mental  vision  to  be 
obscured  by  passion  or  prejudice"  for  the  want  of  that  thor- 
ough, impartial  examination  which  it  is  the  duty  of  all  to 
make.  Surely,  no  satisf  iction  can  then  arise  from  the  con- 
sciousness that  we,  through  sheer  neglect  of  investigation,  have 
thus  thrown  the  "weight  of  our  influence,  (»r  any  part  of  it, 
into  the  scale  of  error,  either  in  principle  or  practice.  If  we 
shall  derive  satisfaction  from  any  thing  we  shall  have  done  on 
earth,  it  will  be  for  our  having  diligently  and  prayerfully  sought 
for  thpi  truth  and  closely  adhered  to  it." 

Pedobaptist. — Your  remarks  I  deem  very  appropriate,  and 
pledge  myself  most  sacredly,  to  renounce  every  rehgious  sen- 
timent,  not  authorized  by  the  word  of  God  ;  and  bow  with  deep 
humility  to  his  commandments,  and  to  Apostolical  example. 
iNow,  asit  is  much  easier  to  ask  than  answer  questions,  with 
your  permission  I  would  like  to  throw  the  laboring  oar  on  you. 

Baptist. — [  shall  not  complain  of  taking  it  my  part  of  the 
time,  and  will  endeavor  to  use  it  as  skiltuHv  as    p)ssib!e. 

Pedobaptist. — Do  the  Baptist  denomination  believe,  with  the 
Pedobapust,  that  baptism  is  an  indisvensable  prerequisite  to 
C(jmmunion  at  the  Lord's  Table  / 

Baptist — Oh  yes  ! 

Pedobaptist. — It  would  grUify  me  to  hear  what  authority 
and  evidence  you  have  to  support  this  belief. 

Baptist. — The  precepts  of  Christ  and  the  example  of  the 
Apostles. — The  great  Law  of  the  commission  runs  thus:  "Go 
ye  forth,  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  teaching  them 
to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  1  have  commanded  you,"  etc. 


From  this  commission,  it  is  evident  that  after  baptism,  our 
Lord  enjoined  an  observance  of  all  things  whatsoever  he  had 
commanded;  and  as  he  had  previously  commanded  the  celebra. 
tion  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  it  is  obvious  that  that  was  to  follow 
baptism.  And  indeed  we  learn  from  scripture,  that  the  Apos- 
tles thus  understood  the  commission ;  for  the  first  time  Peter 
preached  under  its  authority,  he  commanded  his  hearers  to  "  re- 
pent and  be  baptized ;"  and  afterwards  "  with  many  other  words 
did  he  testify  and  exhort." 

It  is  also  plain  from  scripture,  that  the  people  so  understood 
the  Apostles,for  the  narration  says,  "  They  that  gladly  received 
his  word,  were  baptized  ;  and  the  same  day  there  were  added 
unto  them  about  three  thousand  souls.  And  they  continued 
steadfastly  in  the  Apostles'  doctrine  and  fellowship,  and  in 
breaking  of  bread,  and  in  prayers." 

Thus  the  primitive  disciples  first  gladly  received  the  word — 
then  were  baptized — then  werj  added  to  the  church — then  con- 
tinued steadfastly  in  the  Apostles'  doctrine  and  fellowship, 
and  in  breaking  of  bread,  etc.  'I'hus  Paul  fiist  believed,  then 
was  baptized,  then  assayed  to  join  himself  to  the  disciples. 

From  my  examination  of  this  subject,  I  am  fully  convinced 
that  the  ancient  churches  all  practised  upon  the  belief,  that 
baptism  is  a  prerequisite  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  I  shall  select 
but  a^eic  of  the  multitude  of  testimonials  to  this  universally 
received  opinion. 

Justin  Martyr  says,  "  This  food  is  called  by  us,  the 
Eucharist ;  of  which  it  is  unlawful  for  any  to  partake  but 
such  as  believe  the  things  that  are  taught  by  us  to  be  true, 
and  have  been  baptized." 

Dr.  Wall.  No  church  ever  gave  the  communion  to  any  per- 
sons  before  they  were  baptized.  Among  all  tlie  absurdities  that 
were  ever  held,  none  ever  maintained  </m^that  any  person  should 
partake  of  the  communion  before  he  was  baptized. 

Dr.  Doddridge.  It  is  certain,  that  as  fir  as  our  knowledge 
of  primitive  anti([uity  reaches,  no  unhaptized  person  received 
the  Lord's  Supper  *  *  *  How  excellent  soeixr  any  man's 
character  is,  he  must  be  baptized  bafore  he  can  be  looked  upoa 
as  «-.ompletely  a  member  of  the  church  of  Christ. 

With  these,  agree  the  testimonies  of  St.  Austine,  Lord  Chan- 
cellor King,  Benedict  Pictet,Dr.  Gill,  etc. 

These  testimonies  place  it  beyond  a  doubt,  that  the  ancient 
churches  practised  upon  the  belief  that  baptism  is  a  prerequi' 
site  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  And  all  modern  churches,  with  but  few 
exceptions,  practice  upon  the  same  belief. 


Pedobaptist. — The  authcrities  yon  have  produced,  are  very 
satisfactory;  and  so  tar  I  perfectly  coincide  v/ith  you.  Indeed 
such  a  coincidence  of  opinion,  as  you  have  adduced  between 
the  precepts  of  Christ  and  the  practice  of  the  Apostles,  and 
j)rimitive  christians,  and  of  the  christian  church  in  every  age, 
are  conclusive  evidence  that  Baptis?n  is  a  prerequisite  to  the 
Lord's  Supper.  Hence,  it  follows  that  no  unhapiized person  has 
either  precept  or  example  in  the  New  Testament,  or  in  the 
practice  of  tlie  ancient  church,  to  justify  him  in  coming  to  the 
Lord's  Table.  And,  consequently,  no  church  has  any  authori- 
ty for  inviting  such.  Now  since  we  are  so  v/ell  agreed  res- 
pecting the  prerequisites  to  the  Lord's  Table,  what  is  the  rea- 
son  you  will  not  commune  with  me? 

Baptist. — Wc  have  communed  with  each  other  this  morning 
in  our  christian  intercourse,  as  our  views  have  been  thus  far 
characterized  by  perfect  harmony,  La^t  evening,  we  com- 
muned together  in  "the  mutual  disclosures  ofour  hopes  and  fears, 
our  joys  and  sorrows,  our  prayers  and  exhortations,"and  in  af. 
fectionately  endeavoring  to  aid  each  otiier  onward  in  the  di- 
vine  life. 

Pedobaptist. — Y(>u  do  not  understand  me:  [  moan  why  do  you 
not  commune  with  me   in  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper] 

Bajitist. — Have  you  ever  been  baptized?  And  if  so,  at  what 
age  and  in  what  manner? 

Pedobaptist. — I  have  been  informed  that  I  was  baptized  in  my 
infancy,  by  sprinkling. 

Baptist. — Now,  my  dear  brother,  I  prpsume  you  are  aware 
that  our  denomination  do  not  reixard  sprinkling  as  Christian 
Baptism,  nor  even  the  immersion  of  an  unconscious  infant. — ' 
No,  nothing  short  of  the  immersion  of  a  believer  in  water. 
And  you  know  the  result  of  our  investigation  ended  in  the  full 
conviction,  that  no  xinbaptized  person  had  a  right  to  a[)proach 
the  Lord's  I'able.  And  that  no  church  was  authorized  by  the 
Law  of  Ciirist,  the  example  of  the  Apostles,  or  the  practice  of 
the  ancient  church,  to  invite  such  to  his  Table.  Now  as  we  do 
not  consider  you  b;iptized,  the  reason  is  obvious,  why  we  do  not 
invite  you  to  a  participation  with  us  at  the  Lord's  Table. — 
Were  we  to  do  this  with  our  present  views  of  what  constitute 
christian  baptism,  we  should  eff«ctua!iy  veto  the  principles 
•which  we  hold  in  common  with  your  denomination,  viz:  that 
baptism  is  a  prerequisite  to  communion. 

Pedobaptist. — What  reasons  or  evidences  have  vou  for  not 
believing  us  baptised,  or  rather  fornot  believing  in  indmt  bap- 
tism? 


10 

Baptist. — Before  proceeding  directly  to  answer  this  query,  I 
shall  make  a  few  preliminary  remarks  on  order. 

"Order,"  my  brother,  ''is  heaven's  first  law."  The  whole 
planetary  system  obt^ys  the  certain,  definite,  and  fixed  laws  of 
its  Creator,  and  this  fact,  in  a  satisfactory  manner,  accounts  for 
that  order  and  harmony  in  their  movements,  so  frequently  ob- 
served by  the  astronomer,  as  they  "wheel  (in  their  orbits)  un- 
shaken through  the  void  immense,"  causing  "all  the  sons  of 
God  to  shout  for  joy."  Now  this  consummate  order  and  har- 
mony  is  the  result  of  two  opposite  combined  forces,the  centrifu- 
gal and  centripetal.  Should  we  give  to  one  of  these  a  control- 
ing  influence,  "planets  and  suns  would  run  lawless  through  the 
sky,"  world  would  be  wrecked  on  world,  disorder,  desolation 
and  chaos  would  then  ensue.  Without  order,  the  beauties  of 
the  moral  as  well  as  the  physical  "creation  would  be  annihi- 
lated," the  bands  ot  society  would  be  burst  asunder,  social  in- 
tercourse would  cease  to  be  conducted  on  the  principles  of  or- 
der and  justice,  anarchy  and  contusion  would  reign  throughout 
society.  Again,  order  in  the  religious  world  is  as  beautiful  and 
essential  as  it  is  in  the  natural  and  moral.  Without  it  here,  the 
religion  of  Jehovah  would  be  stripped  of  its  pristine  beauty  and 
glory,  and  consequently  of  the  power  it  was  destined  to  exert 
over  the  minds  of  men.  "  'I'here  must  be  some  defect  in  our 
mental  vision,  if  religion  does  not  appear  to  us  most  lovely  and 
beautiful,  dressed  and  adorned  as  she  descended  from  heaven." 
Shall  ttfe  then,  who  are ^mie,  attempt  to  alter  and  improve  the 
robe  placed  upon  her  by  Infinite  \Visdom? 

Now,  it  is  evident,  to  an  impartial  observer,  thatjust  in  pro. 
portion  as  the  Laws  ordained  to  govern,  either  the  physical, 
moral,  or  intellectual  world,  are  obeyed,  in  that  proportion 
does  order  and  harmony  prevail  in  each  of  those  spheres. 

"  Let  all  things  be  done  decently  and  in  order,"  says  Paul; 
and  in  this  way  only,  I  apprehend,  "  wo  shall  honor  God  and  the 
religion  we  profess." 

Permit  me  to  "illustrate  this  sentiment  by  sacred  history." 
"It  was  the  duty  of  the  Jewish  Priests  to  offer  sacrifices  at 
the  temples,  but  it  was  their  duty  to  wash  or  bathe  themselves 
first.  It  was  not  their  duty  to  offer  sacrifices  unwashed; — it 
would  be  sin  to  do  it," 

"It  was  the  duty  of  all  Israel  to  march  in  n  prescribed  order, 
not  in  any  other  order,nor  in  disorder;  it  would  be  sin  to  do  it." 

"It  was  the  duty  of  Moses  to  erect  the  Tabern?.cle  in  the 
wilderness;  but,  saith  Jehovah,  *  according  to  all  I  shall  show 
thee  after  the  pattern  of  the  Tabernacle,  and  the  pattern  of  all 


the  institutions  thereof,  even  so  shall  ye  make  it;' — It  would  be 
sin  to  make  it  otherwise." 

"  All  the  ordinances  of  the  f;ospel  are  binding  upon  all  men." 
But  it  is  evident  that  the  prescribed  order  in  which  these  in. 
stitutions  of  the  gospel  are  commanded  to  be  observed,  (in  the 
Commission,)  is  the  order,  in  which  every  man  is  bound  to  ob- 
serve them,  or  else  he  violates  the  Law,  and  consequently  sins. 
Hence  it  becomes  a  question  of  no  ordinary  importance,  what 
is  the  order  of  these  institutions.  This  can  be  e;isily  ascertained 
by  referring  to  the  commission,  as  given  by  Matthew  and  Mark. 
You  will  find  by  this  commission  that  faith  and  discipleship 
was  first  enjoined,  then  baptism,  &c.  This  order  was  observ- 
ed in  the  practice  of  the  Apostles.  Hence  we  have  "  an  inspi- 
red explanation  of  that  Law."  Indeed,  "we  possess  in  the 
Gospelsjthe  Acts  and  the  Epistles — an  accumulation  of  evidence" 
bearing  directly  on  this  point,  which  it  would  seem  that  no 
christian,  in  hia  right  mind,  could  possibly  reject.  This  is  not 
bold,  unwarranted  assertion.  For  it  will  be  perfectly  obvious 
to  any  one,  who  will  impartially  examine  the  New  Testament, 
that  it  was  the  uniform  pnctice  of  the  Apostles  to  require  a 
profession  of  faith  before  baptism.  For  example,  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  it  is  said,  "they  that  gladly  received  his  word  were 
baptized. "(Now  faith  is  a  cordial  reception  of  the  truth, )andit  ap. 
pears,  by  the  record,that  the  Apostles  had  ample  evidence  of  their 
belief.  Again,when  the  Eunuch,  asked  for  baptism,''Phillip  said,if 
thou  believest  with  all  thy  heart,  thou  mayest."  This  pro- 
fession, I  think,  we  may  safely  conclude  is  a  fair  specimen  of 
what  the  Apostles  required  of  all  whom  they  baptized.  Again, 
it  is  said  that  many  of  the  Corinthians,  believing  (or  giving 
evidence  ot  belief)  were  baptized.  In  like  manner  the  Phillip, 
pi.in  jailer,  Saul  of  Tarsus,  and  the  Samaritans,  expressed  their 
belief  before  baptism.  So,  in  all  the  other  cases,  it  was  usually 
expressed  or  implied.  Hence  you  perceive,  that  our  main  evi- 
dence, that  failh  is  a  prerequisite  to  baptism,  is  derived  from 
scripture  facts, — "the  law  and  the  testimony." 

Now,  if  this  evidence  adduced  from  scripture,  is  not  suffi- 
cient to  show  that  Faith  is  an  indispensable  pre-requisite  io 
baptism,  then  the  evidence  produced  from  scripture  to  show  that 
Baptism  is  an  indispensable  pre-requisite  to  the  Lord's  Supper, 
is  also  deficient.  Hence  it  follows,  as  inevitably  as  any  demon, 
stration  in  Kuclid,  that  these  two  positions  must  stand  or  fall 
together — both  being  supported  by  the  same  evidence.  And 
since  you  have  admitted  that  the  evidence  adduced  to  prove 
the  latter   position,  has  shown  that  it  rests  on  a  solid  founda- 


13 

tion,  it  follows  that  the  same  evidence  must  (everfto  your  own 
mind,)  show  the  former  to  rest  on  the  same  foundation.  Now 
if  fixith  in  the  subject  bo  an  indispensable  pre-requisite  to  bap- 
tism, as  I  believe  it  has  been  abundantly  shown  from  the  Bible^ 
then  infant  baptism  in  Apostolical  times  could  not  have  been  a 
child  of  the  same  heavenly  household.  But,  my  friend,  in  your 
I'eply  to  this,  it  is  presumed  you  will  give  us  your  warrant  fof 
infant  baptism. 

Pedubapilst. — Why  truly,  my  friend,  though  you  have  occii- 
pied  some  time,  I  have  listened  with  interest  to  your  remarks 
and  illustrations  on  order,and  I  deem  them  very  appropriate,  as 
they  exemplify  the  importance  of  yielding  implicit  obedience 
to  the  prescribed  order  of  all  God's  commands.  But  in  your 
answer  to  the  query  I  proposed,  you  have  been  rather  logical, 
still  I  have  been  unable  to  detect  any  sophistry  in  the  argu- 
ment.— It  seems  the  part  of  candor  to  acknoAvledge  here,  that 
your  answer  has  somewhat  shaken  my  belief,  that  infant  bap- 
tism is  authorised  by  the  great  commission. 

But  as  1.  do  not  see  how  the  argument  con  be  completely 
invalidated,  I  shall  advance  it.  Our  Savior  in  his  last  com- 
mand, said  "  Go  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them,  etc.  Now 
is  it  not  self  evident  that  infants  are  included  in  the  expres- 
sion "  all  nations"?  and  if  so,  what  batter  warrant  can  we  have  ? 
But  why  do  you  smile? 

Baptist. — Why  really,  my  brother,  I  cannot  help  it.  If  the 
expression  "all  nations"  be  a  good  v/arrant  for  baptizing  in- 
fants, then  we  have  equally  as  good  for  baptizing  "  impenitent 
adults  and  all  sorts  of  human  beings,"  for  they  are  included  in 
the  expression  "  all  nations." 

"  According  to  this,  the  Catholics  were  right,  in  teaching 
the  Indians  of  South  America  to  say  the  creed  and  the  Lord's 
prayer,  and  baptizing  them  by  hundreds  and  thousands.  But 
read  the  whole  commission, — remember  that  the  word  render, 
ed  '  teach'  is  admitted  by  all  to  mean  '  di."-'ciple,' — that  disci- 
pleship  and  fiith  are  mentioned  prior  to  baptize,  and  the  infer- 
ence  will  be  very  different.  Look  at  the  practice  of  the  Apos- 
tles, and  see  how  they  understood  the  commission,  and  there 
need  be  nodoubt  about  its  import."  "  Can  any  thing  be  plain- 
er than  that  this  law  of  the  commission  authorizes  the  baptism 
of  believers?" 

Pedohaptist. — But  it  is  plain,  my  friend,that"the  directions  of 
Christ  here  refer  only  to  those  who  are  capable  of  believing, 
and  the  language  does  not  forbid  the  baptism  of  infants." 

Baptist. — It    is  true  "  these  directions  command  none  bul 


4  13 

believers  to  be  bnptized,"  and  Ave  shall  probably  see  good  rea- 
sons for  this,  if  we  find  room  in  this  tract,  to  examine  the  spir- 
itual nature  of  Christ's  kingdom,  as  well  as  the  import  and 
design  of  baptism.  "  But  further,  the  terms  of  the  commission, 
while  they  enjoin  the  baptism  of  believers,  do,  most  certainly, 
exclude  the  biptisai  of  any  but  believers."  Sujipose  that  1  have 
II  tarm  I  wish  to  stock,  and  comUiission  my  ii gent  to  purchase 
for  17)0  a  number  of  red  milch  cows.  Now  tliis  a;^cnt,  instead 
of  purchasing  exclusively  the  kind  and  color  of  cows  mentioned 
in  his  commistfion,  purchases  soma  black  cows  and  some 
that  were  not  milch — some  calves,  etc.  I  ask  now,  if  he  does 
not  violate  his  instructions  ?  But  when  I  inquire  of  him  why 
he  purchased  calves,  black  cows,  etc.,  he  replies,  the  color  is 
*^  7ion-esseniial,"  and  there  is  no  clause  in  tha  commission  that 
interdicts  it.  I  inquire,  is  not  the  color  essential  to 
obedience?  Have  you  any  authority  for  doing  thus?  He 
replies  none  :  but  adds,  you  did  not  direct  me  7iot  to  buy 
them.  Nor  was  it  nece3s::ry, I  rejoin.  When  30U  received  your 
commission  for  purchasing  cows  of  a  certain  description,  you 
were  as  really  forbidden  to  purchase  cows  of  any  other  d'iscrip. 
tion,  on  my  account,  as  if  I  ha;!  said,  in  so  many  words,  buy 
vi'd  milch  cows  and  do  not  purchase  any  other;-'.  You 
miyht  as  well  have  purchased  fur  me  horses,  and  urged  that 
the  above  words  of  your  commission  do  not  prohibit  it !  In 
doing  as  you  have,  you  have  acted  without  authority  and  against 
my  instructions,  and  you  must  abide  the  consequences.  In  like 
manner,  the  commission  given  by  our  Savior, — "directs  his 
ministers  tob:iptize  believers  and  them  only. ^'  Mentioning  none 
hut  believers,  it  virtually  excludes  all  others.  To  administer  the 
ordinance  to  any  others,  is  to  act  without  the  authority  of 
Christ,  and  against  his  instructions.  Yea  more,  if  there  were 
another  commission  requiring  infants  to  be  b.Tptized,  it  could 
not  abolish  the  cornmisaion  now  under  consideration,  which 
requires  all  men  to  be  baptized  on  beli'iving  the  gospel. 

"  The  command  of  Jesus  to  every  believer  to  be  baptized,  stands 
ensraven  in  irdeliblo  characters  in  ins  commission.  It  cannot 
be  effaced,  and  I  call  on  you  and  all  believers  on  their  alle;:iance 
to  the  Son  of  God,  to  submit  to  this  ordinance  of  his  kingdom." 
It  seems  to  me,  that  no  believer,  in  good  health,  can  urge  any 
thin^  like  a  reasonable  excuse  for  neglecting,  or  disobeying  so 
•plain  a  command. 

If  any  thing  more  were  wanting  to  satisfy  us  respecting  the 
subjects  of  baptism, we  have  it  in  the  concluding  direction  of  the 
commission,  "  Teaching  ihem,"  &c.     "  The  candidate  is  sup- 

M 


14 

posed  to  bo  old  enough  to  bo  taught  the  other  institutions  of 
the  Gospel.  Unconsciousbabesof  course  are  excluded."  Our 
views  uf  this  subject  are  agreeable  to  those  of  many  pious  and 
learned  Pedobaptists. 

Grotioiis.  "  Christ  properly  requires  teaching  the  first  elements  of  Christianity  as  pre- 
ceding BAPTISM     which  also  was  always  used  in  the  church  previous  to  that  ordinance." 

Jerome,  the  most  learned  of  all  the  Latin  Fathers,  says  ;  "  They  first  teach  all  nations ; 
then  WHEN  they  are  taught,  they  baptize  them  in  water,  for  it  cannot  be  that  the  body 
should  receive  the  sacrament  of  baptism,  unless  the  soul  has  before  received  true  faith." 

Calvin.  "Because  Christ  requires  teachinjf  before  baptizing,  and  will  have  believers 
only  admitted  to  baptism,  baptism  does  not  seem  to  be  rightly  administered,  except  faith 
precede." 

Baxter,  speaking  ofthecommission.  "  This  is  not  like  some  occasional,  historical  men- 
tion of  baptism,  but  it  is  the  very  commission  of  Christ  to  his  Apostles  for  preaching  and 
baptizing ;  and  purposely  expresseth  their  several  works  in  their  several  places  and  order- 
Theirfirst  task  is,  by  teaching  to  make  disciples,  which  by  Murk  arc  called  believers.  The 
second  work  is  to  baptize  them.  The  third  worlc  is,  to  teacli  them  all  other  things,  which 
are  afterwards  to  bo  learned  from  the  school  of  Clirist.  To  contemn  this  order,  ts  to 
RENOUNCE  ALL  RULES  OF  ORDER;  for  where  Can  we  expect  to  find  it,  if  not  here  3  I  pro- 
fess mj' conscience  is  fully  satisfied,  that  there  is  one  sort  of  faith,  even  saving,  that  must 
go  before  baptism." 

Pedobaptisi. — The  evidences  that  you  have  produced,  from 
scripture  and  history,  to  support  beUevc7-''s  baptism,  is  quite 
satisfactory, — indeed,  I  am  very  willing  to  admit,  that  the 
Apostles  baptized  believers,  and  that  the  commission  enjoined 
it. — But  i\\c\\,we  believe,  that,  as  there  is  nothing  in  the  New 
Testament  that  explicitly  prohiints  infint  baptism,  the  silence 
of  the  scriptures  must  be  in  favor  of  the  rite.  Why  do  not 
your  denomination  practice  it  1 

Baptist. — Why,  my  friend,  do  you  again  bring  forward  tho 
•sjZence  of  the  scriptures  to  prove  infant  baptism?  I  thought, 
really,  that  my  reply  had  annil.ilated  this  position. — Have  you 
actually  no  better  evidence  from  Scripture  than  silence  to  provo 
the  lawfuhiess  of  this  rite?  How  ditferent  were  the  reasonings 
of  Paul !  He  proves  that  the  tribe  of  Judah  had  nothing  to 
do  with  Aaron's  priesthood,  from  the  silence  of  Moses  :  "  of 
which  tribe  Ptoses  spale  nothing  concerning  the  priesthood.'^ 
"  The  New  Testament  does  not  forbid  infant  baptism." 
JSeithcr  does  it  forbid  the  admission  of  infants  to  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, nor  the  invocation  of  Saints,  nor  the  sprinkling  of  holy 
Avater,  nor  the  use  of  salt  and  spittle,  nor  the  saying  of  mas.«i 
for  the  repose  of  the  dead,  nor  indeed,  all  the  paraphernalia  of 
Popery.  "  But  does  this  silence  prove  that  these  superstitions 
are  lawful,  and  should  be  observed  ?"  If  so,  '■^  what  a  wonder 
working  power  this  silence  is?'' 

Again,  the  reason  why  we  do  not  baptize  infants,  is  because 
the  Apostles  baptized  believers,  and  there  is  no  evidence  from 
scriptures  that  they  ever  baptized  any  except  believers.  Again, 
should  a  man,    who  did  not  believe  baptism  a  prerequisite  to 


15 

communion,  ask  me  why  we  admit  ??on^  to  the  Lord's  Supper 
but  baptized  -persons,  I  should  advisedly,  reply,  because  the 
Apostles  communed  with  baptized  persons;  and  there  is  no 
evidence  from  Scripture  that  they  ever  communed  with  any 
who  were  not  baptized.  It  seems  to  me  that  this  argument 
alone  is  sufficient  to  condemn  infant  baptism.  Here  I  take 
my  stand  on  the  very  ground  of  Christ's  commands,  and  the 
Aposik's'  example;  and,  unless  it  can  bo  shown  from  Scripture 
that  tlu!  Apostles  h?.\>i{xQ(}i  icithout  a  prof ession  of  faith,  or  com- 
muned  with  imbaptized  persons,  1  must  sfill  m^^xivd  fuilh  as  a 
prerequis'te  to  baptism  ;  and  baptism  as  a  prerequisite  to  the 
celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  consciquently  must  reject 
allbaptism  except  believer'' s,  as  unchristian  ;  not  being  author, 
izcd  by  the  Law  of  Christ,  nor  the  example  of  the  inspired 
Apostles,  which  is  a  complete  explanation  of  that  law.  Again, 
it  should  be  remembered  that  the  only  evidence  we  have  irom 
Scripture,  t\vit  baptism  in  a  prerequisite  to  church  membi.-rship, 
is  the  example  of  ths  Apostles  in  the  constitution  of  the  primitive 
church;;s,*  and  this  is  deemed  sufficient  by  all  denominations. 
Now,  that  faith  is  a  prerequisite  to  baptism,  we  have  not  only 
lac  testimony  Oi  Apostolical  example,  hut  in  addition  to  (his, 
we  have  the  express  precepts  of  Jesus  Christ.  "  Such  being  the 
fact,  our  assurance  is  doubly  sure  that  we  are  on  the  side  of 
TRUTH.  It  seems  to  me  that  this  subject  is  so  plain,  that  "  ho 
who  runs  may  read,  and  he  who  reads  may  understnnd." 

Pedobaplist, — To  be  honest,  my  friend,  j'our  illustrations 
h:\vc  convinced  me  that  silence  cannot  prove  infant  baptism  to 
be  a  divine  requirement,  for  if  it  could,  it  would  also  prove,  (as 
you  have  shown.)  that  all  the  penances  of  the  Romish  ciiurch 
are  divine  requirements.  And,  still  farther,  your  arguments  have 
compel!<;d  me  to  abandon,  as  untenable,  the  idea  that  i;if  int  bap- 
tism can  be  found  in  the  commission.  But  the  examples  of  the 
Apostles  I  believe  you  have  admitted  us  good  authority,  and 
they,  you  are  aware,  baptized  certain  households,  and  it  is  alto- 
gether probable  that  these  houshokls  contained  infant  children. 

Baptist. — ^'Probably  they  contained  infant  chiklren  ;  but 
that  is  begging  the  question,  which,  to  avail  you  any  thing, 
must  ba  made  certain.  The  burden  of  proof  rests  on  you. 
The  mere  expression,  baptized  households,  will  avail  nothing 
till  you  prove  not  only  that  ihey  might  contain,  but  that  they 
actually  viv  contain  infanfs.f  and  that  the  infanta  were  iictunl- 

''^  Fior.i  Scripture  we  leara  that  the  church  at  Jerusalem,  and  also  that  at  Corinth,  were 
composed  ol"  baptized  nEi.iEVEiis. — Acts. 

t  VV^hen .  householiU  are  mentioned  it  must  be  shown  also,  to  avail  any  thing,  that  alj 
the  members  of  the  family  are  included  insci  ipture  language:  but  "a  man's  foes  are  Ihey 
of  his  liouseiiold'" — surely  not  infants. 


18 

ly  baptized.  This  lam  confident  j'ou  will  not  attempt ;  for 
the  spirit  of  inspiration  lias  left  on  record  facts  concerning 
two  of  these  cases,  which  prove  conclusively  that  they  contain,' 
ed  only  those  who  believed. 

Let  us  examine  these  household  baptisms.  It  is  said  respec- 
ting the  jailers'  household,  that  Paul  and  Silas  "spake  unto  him 
the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house  ;  and  he 
rejoiced,  believing  in  God  with  all  his  house." 

Di'.  McKni^ht,  a  pedobiptist,  remarks:  "  The  houso  of  the 
jailer,  it  seems,  were  equally  impressed  loith  Paid's  sermon  as  the 
jailer  himself  was." 

Calvin  — '•  in  which  the  grace  of  God  suddenly  *  *  brought 
the  WHOLF.  FAMILY  to  a  pious  consent." 

Bloomfield.  "It  is  taken  for  granted,  "his  fa?nily  become 
Christians  as  well  as  himself." 

Concerning  the  household  of  Stephanus,  Paul  writes:  "It  is 
the  first  fruits  of  Achaia,  and  they  have  addicted  themselves  to 
the  ministry  of  the  saints."  On  which  Dr.  McKnight  rema-ks, 
"  ']  he  family  f>f  Stephanus  seem  all  to  have  been  adults  when 
they  were  baptized,  as  they  are  said  to  have  devoted  themselves 
to  the  ministry  of  the  saints." 

\Vith  reference  to  the  case  of  Lydia,  it  appears  she  was  a 
stranger  from  Thyatira,  residing  in  Phillippi,  nearly  three  hun- 
dred  miles,  for  the  purposes  of  trade.  The  account  speaks  nei- 
ther of  husband  nor  children,  and  there  is  no  evidence  that  she 
had  cither.  "Probably  her  household  was  compnsud  of  assist. 
ants  in  her  bus.ness,  who,  following  her  example,  ie/iercJ.  and 
were  baptized.  For  we  are  informed,  that  when  Paul  and  Silas 
Itil  (he  city,  they  entered  into  the  house  of  Lydia  and  saw  and 
comforted  the  bvfthren." 

/  gain  :  when  Paul  preached  in  Corinth,  Crispus  with  all  big 
house  believed  in  the  Lord.  In  all  these  cases  there  is  no  men, 
tion  made  of  any  one  being  baptized  on  another's  f  lith. 

1  bus  we  find  in  the  New  Testament  baptized  households  ]\Mit 
as  often  as  we  find  believiiig  households.  "As  we  happen  to 
belong  to  a  housi;hold,"  all  of  which,  includiiig  twelve  children, 
have  been  baptized  on  a  profession  of  t'leir  own  fiith,  the 
inference,  because  that  the  Apostles  baptized  households,  they 
"probably  baptized  infants,  cannot  be  expected  to  strike  our  mind 
af.  irresistible  ;"  especiallv  as  other  such  instances  are  not  un- 
frequent.  Within  a  recent  period  the  missionaries  in  Burmnh 
speak  of  biptizing  eight  entire  households  of  !>L;lievcrs.  Can 
you  now,  my  friend,  with  such  evidences  before  you,  find  uu. 
jthority  for  infant  baptism  in  the  households  mentioned? 


17 

Pedohaptist. — Indeed,  from  the  examination  of  the  household 
baptisms  rocorded  in  the  New  Testament,  it  seems  the  part  of 
candor  to  concede  that  they  furnish  no  evidence  to  support  in- 
fant  baptism,  but  very  much  beUever'.s  baptism.  Now, although 
these  household  baptisms  seem  to  take  part  against  me,  still  1  am 
very  positive  we  have  authority  for  infant  baptism  in  the  Abra- 
hamic  covenant.  Baptism  has  now  taken  the  place  of  circum- 
cision, and  children  under  that  covenant  you  know  were  cir- 
cumcised, hence  they  should  be  baptized  under  the  gospel  dis- 
pensation. 

Baptist. — The  covenant  made  with  Abraham  may  be  found 
inGen.  xvii:   1 — 14.     Please  turn  to  it. 

Now",  my  friend,  if  this  is  the  very  covenant  God  has  made 
with  every  christian  parent,  then  he  is  under  obligations  to 
perfdrm  the  rite  of  circumcision  on  every  man  child  in  hia 
house,  and  that  too  on  the  eighth  day,  neither  before  nor  after 
that  period. 

'•  But  it  is  said  baptism  has  come  in  the  place  of  circumcision. 
You  assert  it,  and  you  must  [)rove  it.  If  we  are  yet  under  the 
covenant  of  circumcision,  only  baptism  having  taken  place  of 
the  ancient  rite,  why  has  not  the  Bible  informed  us  of  the  fact? 
When  some,  who  had  embraced  the  religion  of  Jesus,  (Acts  v.) 
insistea  that  the  christian  converts  should  be  circumcised,  why 
did  not  the  great  council  ol  the  Apostles  and  Elders,  who  deci- 
ded that  circumcision  was  abolished,  satisfy  tliose  who  were 
joalous  of  the  law,  by  reminding  them  that  the  baptism  of  in- 
fants  was  to  be  practised  as  a  substitute  (or  circumcision?" 

But  I  presume  you  are  aware  that  only  male  children  and 
adults  were  circumcised.  Now,  if  baptism  has  taken  the  room 
of  circumcision,  it  follows  that  none  save  males  are  eligible  to 
receive  this  rite. 

And  when  Paul  wrote  to  the  Gallatians,  in  opposition  to  the 
Judaizing  teachers,  who  held  to  circumcision,  why  do  we  find  in 
his  Epistle  not  a  single  hint  of  the  same  fact?  Could  the  spirit  of 
inspiration  have  sutiered  such  an  opportunit)'  to  pass  without 
intorming  the  church  that  infant  baptism  had  taken  the  place 
of  circumcision  ?  Had  this  been  done,  it  would  have  forever 
settled  the  question  and  ended  all  further  dispute. 

Ag"ia  :  on  another  occasion,  (Acts  xxi.  17 — 22,)  when  Paul 
made  his  last  visit  to  Jerusalem,  he  went  in  unto  James,  all  the 
Elders  being  present,  and  then  gave  an  account  of  the  wonders 
God  had  wrought  by  bis  ministry  among  the  Gentiles.  And 
hearing  this  they  glorified  the  Lord.  One  of  them,  immediate, 
ly  appealing  to  his  knowledge  of  the  "  thousands  of  Jews  which 

c 


16 

bsUeve  and  are  zealous  of  the  l;i\v,"  says,  that  "thoyare  in- 
formed  by  thee,  that  thou  teachcst  all  the  Jews  which  arc  among 
the  Gentiles  to  forsake  Moses,  saying  they  ought  not  circim). 
CISC  their  children."  Paul  is  here  charged  with  teaching  his 
Jewish  converts  to  neglect  circumcision,  JSow  had  he  taught 
them  to  baptize  their  children,  as  a  substitute,  was  he  not  im- 
periously  called  upon  to  declare  it  in  self-dnfence.  But  ths 
utter  silence  of  the  Apostle,  when  thus  pressed  by  his  Jewish 
brethren. is  irresistible  evidence  to  my  mind  that  infant  baptism 
at  that  time  was  unknown. 

Again,  cireuuicision  was  administered  to  adults  v.'ithout  re- 
quiring faith  or  repentance  as  a  qualitication.  But  there  is  no 
instance  left  on  record  of  any  (except  christians)  being  admitted 
to  baptism,  without  giving  evidence  of  possessing  both.  As  I 
have  already  said  more  on  this  head  than  !  intended,  I  siiall 
x)nly  add  that  the  most  eminent  biblical  schoUrs  of  the  ag;  bj/j-qq 
with  Professor  Stuait,  in  the  opinion  that  ''the  Abrahamic  coven- 
ant furnishes  no  ground  for  infant  baptism.^''* 

Pedobaptist. — And  no\\,  my  friend,!  must  acknowledge  my 
disappointment  in  not  finding  any  warrant  in  i\\e  Abrahamic 
covenant  for  infant  baptism.  From  the  examination  and  re- 
marks made,  I  feel  myself  compelled  to  abandon  it  in  despair, 
and  coincide  with  Professor  Stuart's  views.  But  though  thi.j 
covenant  furnishes  no  authority  for  the  rite,  still  "in  the  chris- 
tian church  from  its  earliest  ages,  and  we  think  from  the  Apos- 
tles' time,  it  has  been  the  custom  to  baptize  the  inlant  children 
of  professing  christians.  In  proof  of  this,  f  might  cite  a  pas- 
sage from  Justin  Martyr's  apology,  and  another  from  Irena3us, 
(Sic  I  presume  you  are  acquainted  with  the  passaeres;  if  so,  I 
should  like  to  hear  what  you  have  to  say  on  them. 

Baptist. — Now  I  am  quite  ready  to  grant,  that  if  infant  bap- 
tism  can,  by  authentic  records,  be  traced  back  to  the  Apot^tlco' 
time,  you  have  good  authority  for  the  piaciice  of  it.  But  I  am 
sure  this  cannot  be  done.  Had  you  either  precept  or  example 
for  it  in  the  New  Testament,  it  would  be  established 
beyond  a  doubt.  But  that  these  are  wanting,  is  conceded  by 
someot'*tbe  ablest  Pedobaptist  writers,  many  of  whom  admit, 
with  Dr.  Woods,  that  "we  have  no  express  precept  cr  exam- 
ple for  infant  baptism  in  all  of  our  sacred  writings."  "Com- 
mands, or  plain  and  certain  examples  in  the  New  Testament 
relative  to  it,"(infant  baptism, )3ays  Professor  Stuart,  "1  do  not 
find."  Bishop  Bnrnet  says,  "there  is  no  express  precept  or 
rule  given  in  the  New  Testament  for  the  baptism  of  infants." 

•  iklanu»cripji  Lecture*,  Gal.  3> 


IT) 

ivtartin  Luther  says,  "//!  cannot  he  proved  hy  the  sacred  scrip, 
iu^es,  that  infant  haptism  teas  instituted  by  Christ,  or  begun  by  tfie 
Jirst  christians  after  the  Apostles."  Neander  says,  "  That  Christ 
did  not  establish  infant  baptism,  is  certain."  Similar  admissions 
are  made  by  IJishops  Prideaux,  Sanderson,  Stillingfleet,  by  Lim- 
borch,  Erasmus,  VVitsius,  and  the  most  celebrated  writers  of 
England  and  the  continent. 

As  we  intend  to  make  some  quotations,  from  the  German  au- 
thors, in  regard  lo  infant  baptism,  justice  to  them  seems  to  de- 
mand that  we  should  here  state,  "that  while  (hey  in  general 
deny,  that  infant  baptism  was  introduced  by  Christ  or  by  his 
apostles,  they  still  justify  the  practice  on  the  ground  of  analogy 
or  expedienc3\  So  far,  however,  from  being  agreed  in  wh.-.t 
the  true  reason  for  this  practice  consists,  they  differ  so  widely 
«.3  mutually  to  destroy  each  others  foundation."  As  we  have 
not  room  iiere  to  introduce  their  views  we  wou!d  only  remark, 
that  "  with  the  various  theories  of  infant  baptism,  not  resting 
on  apostoiiciil  practice,  we  have,  at  present,  nothing  to  do.  Our 
fjingle  object,  in  introducing  the  testimony  of  these  critics  is,  to 
prove  this  one  historical  fact,  that  infant  baptism  was  not  prac. 
lised  by  the  apostles."  We  shall  select  only  a  few  of  the  multi- 
tude of  examples,  that  nai^ht  be  adduced, 

■"We  will  proc*^e<]  to  onr  ptiKnosi?"  l>y  introdticinj  tlio  testimony  of  tlie  jreat 
Sc!ileiermacher,  wlio,  in  his  Christian  Tb«oIogy,  p.  3*1,  'pun^cutly,if  not  in(ii{fuantly,  re- 
marks:'  "All  traces  of  iiifant  haptism,  which  one  will  find  in  the  New  Tootanieiit,  most 
FJRSTBEPUT  INTO  JT."  flf  <-aIl.«  it  "  a  departure  from  the  ori]?iiial  institution,  Rnd  yet  he 
defends  it  on  other  grounds."  He  furllierniore  says.  "Our  syniliolical  books  (i.  e.  the 
creeds)  treat  of  it  without  regard  to  hi.vtory,  and  attempt  to  justify  it  in  itself;  but  the 
manner  in  which  they  ilo  it,  is  unsatisfactory,  aud  upon  grounds  that  essentially  destroy 
each  other." 

Prof.  Hahn's  Theology,  p.  556:  "  .\coorJing  to  its  true  original  design,  it  can  be  given 
<».«ily  te  ADULTS,  who  are  capable  of  trne  knowledg-e,  repentance  and  faith.  Neither  in  the 
Scriptures,  nor  during  the  first  hundred  and  fifty  years,  is  a  sure  example  of  infant  bap- 
Tis.M  to  he  found  ;  and  we  must  concede  ;  that  the  numerous  oppos  ins  of  it  cannot 
BE  CONTRADICTED  ON  GOSPEL  GROUND."  Few  men  Stand  so  high  in  public  estimation  for 
piety,  sonse  and  learning,  as  Prof.  Hahn,  of  Rrrslau.  In  another  passage,  he  adds  :  "  It 
arose  from  false  views  of  original  sin,  and  of  tlie  magical  power  of  consecrated  water." 

Winer's  manuscript  Lectures:  "Originally  only  adults  were  baptized  ;  but,  at  the  end 
of  the  socond  century,  in  Africa,  and  in  the  third  ccnturj-  generally,  infant  baptism  was  in- 
troduced ;  and  in  the  fourth  century,  it  was  theologically  maintained  by  Augustine." 

Corrodi.  "  At  the  time  of  Christ  and  his  disciples,  only  adulis  were  baptized  ;  there- 
fore, a'nong  christians  at  the  present  day,  not  children,  but  adults,  who  are  capable  of  pro- 
fessing Christianity,  ought  to  be  baptized." 

Prof.  Lange,  in  his  recent  work  on  Infant  Baptism  observes:  "  All  attimpts  f*  make  out 
infant  baptism,  from  the  New  Testament,  fail.  It  is  totally  opposed  to  the  spirit  of  the 
apostolical  age,  and  to  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  New  Testament." 

Matthies,  one  of  the  latest  writers  on  baptism,  says  :  "  In  the  first  two  centuries,  no  docu- 
ments are  found,  which  clearly  show  the  existence  of  infant  b:iptism  at  that  time." 

Dressier.  "  In  the  New  Testament,  it  is  no  where  mentioned,  that  the  children  of  Cbrii"- 
tian  parents  were  baptized ;  the  consecration  by  baptism,  always  relates  to  those  only 
whose  faith  was  changed,  and  who  were  made  acquainted  with  Christ  and  became  his  dis- 
ciples." 

Von  Coin.  "Exorcism  wag  practiced  in  early  times  only  with  demoniacs ;  then  it  be- 
came a  catechetical  preparation  ;  and,  after  infant  baptism  was  introduced,  it  was  a 
port  of  the  baptismal  rite." 


20 

ilase's  Theology  :  "Baptism  obligates  a  man  to  a  CUri^liaa  life  ;  but  how  can  one  who 
is  unconscious,  obligate  himself  to  auy  thing?" 

Hutterus  Redivivus.  "The  imputation  of  the  parent's  faith  to  their  children,  must  bo 
laid  aside  as  an  opus  operatum"  (i.  e.  a  mere  form). 

Biiumgarten  Crusius,  Hist,  of  Theology:  "  Infant  baptism  can  be  supported  neither  by  a 
distinct  apostolical  tradition,  nor  apostolical  practice." 

Bretschuaider,  in  his  Tlieolog)',  observes:  "  Rheinhard,  Morus  and  Doderlein,  say,  in- 
fant baptism  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  Bible."  We  need  say  nothing  of  the  literary  char- 
acter of  these  three  great  men. 

Kaiser's  Bib.  Theology.  "  Infant  baptism  was  not  an  original  institution  of  Christiansty. 
When  i  lis  said  of  Lydia,  that  she  was  baptized  with  her  whole  house,  it  evidently  means 
only  those  who  were  capable  of  it,  or  who  believed.  In  Acts  18  :  8,  it  is  said,  that  the  bap- 
tized household  had  BELIEVED.  Thefiriittracesofinfant  baptism  are  in  the  second  century." 

Prof.  Lindner  of  Leipsic,  on  the  Supper,  says:  "Christian  baptism  can  be  given  only  to 
adults,  not  to  infants.  The  Holy  Spirit,  which  is  given  only  to  believers,  was  a  prerequis- 
ite to  baptism." 

Gesenins,  being  informed,  in  conversation,  that  the  Baptists  of  America  reject  infant 
baptism,  and  baptize  only  adults,  on  profession  of  faith,  replied:  "  that  is  perfectly  riglit, 
that  is  according  to  the  Bible."  * 

Now  it  should  h?,  remembered  here,  that  these  are  some  of 
the  most  eminent  Pedobaptist  theologians,  and  that  their  testi- 
monies militate  against  their  own  practice.  What,  1  would 
ask,  but  a  deep  conviction  of  tjjuth  would  have  induced  them 
to  make  these  concessions  ?  These  admissions  from  you  own 
writers  I  presume  you  will  admit  as  good  evidence,  that  infant 
baptism  had  no  existence  in  Apostolical  times.  Here  I  might 
rest  the  whole  argument;  for  if  it  cannot  be  proved  that  Christ 
instituted  it,  or  that  the  Apostles  practised  it,  then  those  who 
practice  it,  do  it  without  any  scripture  authority,  and  of  course 
they  viust  abandon  the  fundamental  principle  of  every  Pro- 
testant, that  the  Bible  alone  is  our  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 

But  I  proceed  to  notice  the  case  of  Justin  Martyr,  who, 
speaking  of  many  of  the  aged  members  of  the  church,  "  some 
eixty,  some  seventy  years  old."  says,  they  "were  made  disciples 
to  Christ  from  their  infancy." 

"  It  is  worthy  of  note  here,  that  the  Greek  verb  employed  is  the 
Same  as  that  rendered  teach  [Ematheteusan]  in  the  commission." 
Matthies,  commenting  on  this  passage,  says,  "  these  words 
mean  simply,  that  from  their  childhood  thet  were  in- 
structed IN  RELIGION."  For,  in  another  place,  speaking  of 
the  order  and  manner  of  baptism,  Justin  Martyr  says,  "  that 
only  those  who  believed  what  they  were  taught  were  baptized." 
From  which  it  appears,  that  in  Justin's  view,  "  baptism  was  to 
be  given  subsequent  to  faith." 

Starck  says,  "  The  defenders  of  infant  baptism  attempt  to 
prove  it  from  Justin  Martyr  and  Irenseaa,  but  neither  of  them 
says  ichat  is  attributed  to  him.^' 

Neander,  Winer,  Rheinhard  and  Munscher,  Hahn,Lange,  and 
nearly  all  the  German  critics,  are  directly  opposed  to  the  Pedo- 
baptist view  of  this  passage. 


21 

Baumgarten  Crusius,  speaking  of  "  The  celebrated  passage 
in  Irenaeus,"  says, it  "is  not  io  be  applied  to  infant  baptism,  for 
the  phrase  renascuntur,  &c.  evidently  means  the  participation 
of  all  in  his  divine  and  holy  nature,  in  which  he  became  a  sub- 
stitute  for  all." 

Winer.  "Tertullian  is  the  first  that  mentions  infant  baptism, 
IrencBus  does  not  mention  it  as  has  been  supposed." 

"SoRossler,  Munscher,  Von  Coin,"  &;c. 

"Hence  it  appears,  that  Tertullian,  about  A.  D.  204,  is  the 
very  first  writer,  christian  or  pagan,  who  mentions  infant  bap- 
tism, and  he  opposed  it, — "  a  proof,"  says  Neander,  "  that  it  was 
not  yet  customary  to  regard  this  as  an  Apostolic  institution;  for 
had  it  been  so,  he  would  hardly  have  ventured  to  oppose  it  so 
warmly."  Again,  Neander  says:  ''Tertullian  declared  against 
infant  baptism, wliich  at  that  time  was  certainly  not  a  generally 
prevailing  practice,  *  *  *  f^j.  jj^g  assertions  render  in  the 
highest  degree  probable,  it  had  just  begun  to  spread,  and  waa 
therefore  regarded  by   many  as  an   innovation." 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  here,  that  Dr.  Neander,  of  Berlin, 
Prussia,  is  a  "mighty  prince"  among  the  most  eminent  schol- 
ars an!  critical  theologians  of  Germany.  As  an  ecclesiastical 
historian  he  stands  unrivalled.  The  great  body  of  living  Ger- 
man critics,  are  united  with  him  in  this  view  of  the  subject, 

Now,  if  it  !)e  a  fact,  as  I  have  shown,  by  a  reference  to  tlie 
testimony  of  some  of  the  most  eminent  biblical  philologists, 
that  infant  baptism  had  no  existence  in  the  Apostolic  age,  it 
matters  not  in  what  other  age  it  may  be  found,  it  can  have  no 
claims  upon  our  observance,  so  long  as  the  Bible  alone  is  ouv 
rule  of  faith  and  pra,ctice. 

Pedobaptist. — From  the  testimonies  adduced,  it  appears 
that  infant  baptism  was  not  practised,  until  about  the  close  of 
the  second  cen^^ry.  But,  (hen  what  do  you  do  with  the  testi- 
mony  of  Origen^  (who  flourished  not  far  from  the  year  A.  D. 
220,)  and  Augustine,  (about  A.  D.  400;)  they  testify  to  an 
Apostolical  tradition  for  infant  baptism. 

Baptist. — In  regard  to  the  former,  Neander  .says,  "  His  words 
in  that  age,  cannot  have  much  weight ;  for  whatever  was  re- 
garded as  important,  was  alleged  to  be  from  the  apostles.  Be- 
sides, many  walls  of  partition  intervened  between  this  age  and 
that  of  the  apostles  to  intercept  the  view." 

Augustine,  who  lived  in  a  more  remote  age  from  the  apostles, 
says,  "  That  infant  baptism  is  believed  to  be  established,  not  with- 
out  apostolical  authority."  It  appears  that  he  was  more  deeply 
engaged  in  controversv,  than  anv  other  man  in  the  ancienS 


22 

church,  and  that  what  he  says,  he  "  states  rather  as  a  matter 
of  belief  than  as  an  ascertained  fact."  Hence  we  conclude  that 
he  inferred  his  facts,  and  is  therefore  not  a  historical  witness. 
According  to  Mosheim,  he  exposed  himself  to  the  charge  of 
"  hastily  throwing  upon  paper  thoughts,  which  he  had  not  him- 
self duly  considered."  "  What  he  said  of  infant  baptism  he 
might  have  said  equally  as  well  of  infant  communion  if  he  had 
been  speaking  of  that  subject." 

Now  we  learn  from  history  that  Augustine  himself,  though 
he  had  a  pious  mother,  was  not  baptized  till  he  was  33  years  of 
age.  Nor  was  Patricius  his  father,  nor  Ambrose  who  was  the 
means  of  his  conversion,  baptized  till  adult  age. 

Pedohaptist. — It  would  seem,  from  your  remarks,  that  there  is 
no  confidence  to  be  placed  in  the  testimonies  of  Origen  and 
Augustine.  But  then  you  know  that  pious  parents  feel,  that  it 
is  a  duty  that  they  owe  to  their  Maker,  to  consecrate  their  chil- 
dren to  God  by  bGj3tism. 

Baptist. — The  views  which  Pedobaptists  entertain  on  this 
subject,  are,  in  all  probability,  the  legitimate  cfTspring  of  edu- 
cation, as  it  is  acknowledged  that  the  Bible  is  silent  on  the 
subject.  Still  the  feelings  that  induce  pious  parents  to  present 
their  children  for  baptism,  are,  often,  deserving  of  great  respect ; 
and  I  have  no  doubt  they  are  sincere  in  the  belief,  that  they  are 
doing  their  duty.  But  if  feelings  are  to  be  our  criterion  of  what 
is  duty,  then  our  puritan  fathers,  (when  they  believed  that  they 
were  responsible,  for  the  correctness  of  the  religious  bolief  of 
their  fellow  men,)  were  doing  their  duty,  and  of  course  light  in 
whipping,  fining,  imprisoning,  and  hanisliing  the  Baptists,  and  in 
hanging  the  Quakers,  because  they  were  prompted  to  these  acts, 
by  feelings  deserving  of  great  r'>spect,  viz.  a  desire  ti>  preserve 
the  churcli  free  from  heresy,  and  promote  its  purity.  Then,  ev- 
ery voluntary  act  of  man  is  right,  that  is  prompted  by  feeling, 
and  consequently  nothing  wrong, — a  position  too  absurd  to  be 
admitted  for  a  moment.  3len  must  not  set  up  their  feelings  a» 
a  standard,  and  then  attempt  to  bend  the  word'  of  God  to  cor- 
respond with  them.  Our  first  duty  is,  to  ascertain  the  will  of 
God,  (as  revealed  to  us  in  the  scriptures,)  and  then  tado  it. 

Pedohaptist. — But  you  do  Bot  believe  then  in  infant  dediea- 
tion  ? 

Baptist. — Oh  yes  I  do,  let  the  parent  take  the  child  into  his 
closet,  and  there,  in  solemn  fervent  prayer,  dedicate  him  to  God, 
let  this  be  done  not  unfrequently,  and  that  too,  when  the  child 
is  old  enough  to  understand,  and  accompany  it  with  atiection- 
at9  religious  instruction,  and  thus  "  train  up  the  child  in"  "  the 


2^     ^ 

nurture  and  atlmonition  of  the  Lord,"  But  do  not  perform  an 
»;n.iut!ioriz!;d  ceremony  upon  the  cliild,  and  then  teach  him,  that 
this  is  an  ordinance  of  divine  appointment.  But  suppose  \ve 
were  to  admit  the  arguments,  urged  to  sustain  infant  baptism, 
as  valid,*  (and  PedobaptiBts  do  practiciilly  admit  them,)  we 
should  open  a  door  that  would  not  only  admit  all  the  claims  of 
Episcopacy,  but  even  all  the  mummeries  of  Papacy.  And  the 
moment  we  embrace  these,  we  reject  the  authority  of  the  Bi- 
ble, and  of  courne  launch  out  into  the  wide,  deep  abyss  of  infi. 
delity,  and  attempt,  with  our  frail  bark,  to  navigate  an  unknown 
sea,  amid  the  thickest  fog,  without  even  a  rudder,  chart,  or  com- 
2)as9  for  our  guide. 

Pedohaptist. — You  seem  to  regard  infant  baptism  as  a  dopar. 
ture  from  the  Bible,  and  because  there  is  no  express  warrant  for 
it,  conclude  it  ought  not  to  be  practised.  Now  if  nothing  be 
duty  from  the  Bibb,  without  an  express  command,  we  would 
ask,  where  is  your  command  for  family  prayer? 

Baptist. — Family  prnyer  is  a  moral  duty,  and  one  that  does 
not  contravene  any  other  moral  duty.  It  is  clearly  a  dut)', 
"from  the  express  precepts,  which  cannot  be  obeyed  fully  with- 
out  its  performance."  "  Husbands  and  wives  are  commanded 
to  live  together,  as  heirs  of  the  grace  of  life."  "And  this  implies 
the  duty  of  mutual  prayer.  They  are  commanded  to  bring  up 
their  children,  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord,  to 
train  themiip  in  the  icay  they  should  go, — and  this  involves  the 
duty  of  domestic  prayer."  Hence  it  is  not  apposite  for  you  to 
ask,  Mherc  is  your  explicit  command  for  family  prayer?  Again 
it  is  evident,  that  you  have  entirely  overlooked  the  distinction 
between  positive  institutions  and  moral  duties .  These  last,  "  such 
as  repentance,  fiith,  justice,  benevolence,  praise,  prayer,  may  bo 
deduced  from  the  nature  and  fitness  of  things,"  but  we  are  com- 
manded to  pray  witliout  ceasing.  "The  spirit  of  prayer  is  the 
prime  element  of  the  Christian's  life," — 

"  The  christian's  vital  breath. 
The  christian's  native  air-" 

"It  ie  designed  and  adapted  tosanctify  all  the  relations  [of  life] 
in  which  we  stand." 

We  do  not  believe  that  positive  institutions  can  with  propri- 
ety be  inferred  "  from  the  nature  and  fitness   of  things;"  but 

*  Vi-  tringa  has  well  said  :  "  If  it  he  once  grautedto  the  Doctors  of  the  Romish  commun- 
ion, that  the  order  and  worship  of  theGospel  church,  are  conformable  to  those  of  the  Jewish 
economy,  (ro  which  the  Papists  always  look  fur  the  chief  sppport  of  THEia 
M'aERous  ERRORS,)  they  will  plausibly  defend  the  whole  of  their  ecclesiastical  polity." 


24 

give  us  a  logical  inference  for  infant  bnptlsm,  drawn  from  cx- 
p^Cf-s  teaching,  and  we  will  admit  its  force. 

PcdohapHst. — I  mast  acknowledge,  my  friend,  that  I  know  of 
no  express  teaching  in  the  Bible,  from  which  we  can  reasonably 
infer  infant  baptism.  Before  this  conversation  I  thought  differ- 
ently,  but  where  is  your  exp!icit  warrant  for  observing  the 
Lord's  day  as  the  Christian  Sabbath? 

Bajrlist. — My  dear  brother,  for  tlie  observance  of  this  we 
liave  apostolical  precedent.  Give  us  such  a  warrant  for  infant 
baptism,  and  we  will  acknowledge,  that  you  have  good  author- 
ity for  practising  it. 

Pedohaiolist. — But  admitting,  you  have  apostolical  precedent 
for  keeping  the  Lord's  day.  Where,  we  would  like  to  know  is 
ycur  explicit  command  ^or  female  communion  1 

Buftlst. — You  might  with  equal  propriety  'demand  an  ex- 
plicit warrant  for  female  faith  and  regeneration,  because  it  is 
said,'  "  He  that  be'ieveth  shall  be  saved  ;"  and,  "  Except  a  mari 
bo  born  again,  he  cannot  seethe  kingdont  of  God."  "The 
terms  used  are  generic,  as  well  in  reference  to  communion,  as 
to  faith  and  repentance."  But  it  is  clear  from  various  passages 
in  the  New  Testament  that  women  did  partake  of  the  com- 
munion.*  Can  you  find  in  the  New  Testament,  as  satisfac- 
tory evidence  in  favor  of  infant  baptism?  '  I  will  only  add, 
we  do  not  reject  the  baptism  of  infants,  merely  because  there  is 
"no  express  divine  precept  requiring  it ;"  but,  because  thern 
is  neitlier  command,  nor  example,  nor  fair  inference,  to  bo 
found  i;i  its  favor  in  a  single  passage  in  the  Bible.' 

Pedoha'ptist. — I  do  not  now  recollect  that  the  word  child  is 
spoken  of.  in  connexion  with  l)apti.sm,  in  the  New  Testament, 
but  as  it  is  thoxight  indireclly.  to  be  sanctioned  by  some  passages 
i:i  the  New  Testament.  ]  should  like  to  know  what  you  think 
cflhem,V!z:  Matt,  xix  :  13.14,  and  the  parallel  passages  as 
Mark  X  :  13 — 10,  and  Lukexviii :  15,  IG.  "  Then  were  brought 
unto  him  little  children,  that  he  should  put  his  hands  on  them, 
and  pray  :  and  the  disciples    rebuked   them.     But  Jesus  said, 

*  In  1st  Cof.ll  chap.ftom  the  1st  totlie  IStli  verses, the  Greek  "word  aneh,  man,  occurs 
14  times  and  tlie  word  gune,  woman  occurs  16  times.  After  speaking  of  tlie  man  aud  the 
woman  as  members  of  the  church  ;  and  pointing  out  tlieir  relative  duties,  tlie  apostle  uses 
the  word  Tis  v.  IC,  of  both  genders,  referring  to  both  aner  and  gune  ;  and  their  uses  the 
pronouns  YE  and  you  addressing  botli  genders.  As  tlie  pronoun  stands  for  the  noun,  so 
YOU  represent  both  man  and  woman,  its  antecedents.  As  often  says  the  apostle  as  vf,  mea 
and  women  of  whom  I  have  been  speaking,  eat  this  bread  and  drink  this  cup  (in  the  mar- 
gin)   "snow   Y1-,    (MEN  AND  women)    FORTH   THE   1,ORd'S  DEATH    Tl  Lt.  IJE  COM  E?."      Hcro 

flicnisati  express  precept  for  female  communion.  Now  for  an  express  precedent.  On 
Ihe  day  of  Pentecost,  it  is  said  thej'  continued  steadfastly  in  fellowship,  and  in  breakin)^ 
bread.  It  is  evident  that  the  i)ronoun  they  includes  the  120  spoken  of  in  tl\eprcviou» 
chapter  among  whom  were  the  women  and  Mary  the  mother  Jesus,  as  well  as  the  3600,  bu^ 
snonsh.     (This  ucto  is  abrigedf 'om  A.  Ca  npb  ill) 


25 

satTHi'  little  chiMron,  and  forbid  them  not,  to  comp  unto  mo  ; 
for  of  such  i.3  the  kiiigdom  of  heaven.  And  ho  hiid  his  hands 
on  tlioin"  &c. 

Bcqjlist. — This  passage  makes  no  dislincti  >n  between  the  in- 
fants of  bolievt.Ts.or  those  of  unbeliever?,  if  it  favors  the  baptism 
of  the  former,  then  it  mv-st  that  of  the  latter;  but  it  is  evident, 
that  it  has  no  allusion  to  baptism,  and  "Jesus"  you  know  '•  baptiz- 
ed not."  And  a;^;:in  it  cannot  be  pr')ved  that  the  children  re- 
ferred to  were  infanta.  In  Mark  5  :  39,  tho  same  word  is  used 
t )  designate  a  child  12  years  old.  It  ia  distinctly  said  what 
they  were  brought  to  him  for,  and  what  ceremony  he  perform- 
ed. The  English  edition  of  the  Polyglott  Testament,  (Xew 
York,  1832.)  gives  the  true  sense.  "  Of  such  is  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,"  ihat  is,  persons  resembling  children  in  disposition  ; 
having  their  innocence,  simplicitjs  humility,  teachableness. 

See  Dames  in  h.is  note  on  the  place,  so  Kuinoul,  Roscnrau.l. 
Icr,  and  Bloomfield. 

Pedohapiist. — Your  answer  is  very  satisfactory,  but  then 
how  do  you  ex[liin  tho  |)nssnge  1  Cor.  7:  14.  "Tho  unbe- 
lieving husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wite  ;  and  tbo  unbelieving 
wite  is  sanctiiiod  by  the  husband  else  were  your  ch  Idren  un- 
clean, but  novv'  are  they  holy." 

Baptist. — It  is  evident  that  this  passage  has  no  allusion  to 
the  suiijcct  of  biiplism.  It  is  plain,  that  the  unbelieving  hus. 
band  cannot  be  so  sanctified  by  the  pious  wife,  as  to  render  him 
aneligibl;  subject  for  baptism  witliout  faith.  Tho  meaning  of 
the  npostlo,  is  thus  stated  by  the  Rev.  John  L.  Dagg,  in  a  noto 
to  Pongilly's  Guide  to  li-.iptism,  <ts  published  by  the  Baptist 
General  Tract  Society.  "The  unb:lieving  husband  is  not  un- 
clean, so  that  his  wife  may  not  l.iwfully  dwell  with  him  ;  tho 
unbelieving  wife  is  not  unclean,  so  that  her  husband  may  not 
lawfully  dwell  with  her.  If  thoy  are  unclean,  then  your  chil- 
dren arc  unclean,  and  not  one  parent  in  tho  "/hole  church  must 
dwell  with  or  touch  liis  children  until  God  ;.hould  convert  thorn." 
"  If  this  interpretation  is  correct,  this  verse  is  a  decided  proof 
that  infant  baptism  did  not  exist  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles." 
See  Barnes, 

Pedohapiist . — There  is  one  more  passage,  that  I  have  seen 
brought  furward  to  prove  infmt  baptism  ;  should  like  to  hear 
your  opinion  of  that,  (Acts  2:  39.)  "  For  the  promise  is  to 
you,  and  your  children,  and  to  all  that  arc  afar  off,"  etc. 

Baptist. — [{  this  promise  is  made  to  believing  parents  uncon. 
ditionally,  then  their  children  are  included  in  thopro/«ise,  wheth- 
er baptized  or  not,  whether  they  be  the    children  of  believing 


Baptists  or  PoJ.obapti.3t.s.  fjiit  it  is  evident  that  this  promisG 
refers  not  to  the  covenant  of  Abraluinfi  but  to  tiie  promise  re- 
corded in  Joel  2  :   2^?.     (»See  Barns  and  Bloomfield). 

Fedohaplist. — ^Vhy  are  the  Baptists  so  opposed  to  infant 
bapti::?m,  surely  it  can  do  the  children  no  harm,  if  it  djea  tlicm 
no  good. 

Baptist. — If  infant  sprinkling  was  practised,  confessedly  as  a 
mere  human  ceremony,  for  civil  or  domestic  purposes,  it  might 
be,  for  aught  I  know,  perfectly  innocent.  But  to  baptize  (sprin- 
kle)  an  infant  in  the  name  of  God,  "  implies  that  it  is  done  by 
his  command,  and  under  his  authority."  But  it  is  acknowl- 
edged by  Pedobaptist  ministers  themsiUves  that  Christ  did  not 
command  it,  nor  the  Apostles  practise  it.  Hence  it  follows 
that  those  who  practise  it  do  it,  without  any  authority  from 
the  Bible.  And  again  it  follows,  that  if  there  is  no  authority 
for  it  in  the  Bible,  it  cannot  bj  a  positive  Law  of  Christ,  and 
whoever  substitutes  it  for  the  positive  law  of  b  jlievers  biiptism, 
manifestly  nulliiics  or  makes  void  that  explicit  law  of  Christ 
through  "aviiin  tradition."  Now  no  State  in  this  Union, 
has  a  right  to  make  a  law,  that  will  contravene  any  law  in  the 
Constitution.  To  do  this  would  bo,  nrst  only  to  disregard  the 
authority  of  tho  Union,  but  to  cast  a  rcfl action  on  its  wisdom. 
And  has  any  minister,  or  church,  a  right  to  make  a  law,  (or 
Eul)stitute  a  mere  human  tradition  as  a  law,)  to  contravene  or 
mnke  void  an  explicit  law  of  Christ,  in  the  Constitution  of  hia 
spiritual  kingdom  on  earth?  To  do  this,  would  be  a  total  dis- 
regard of  the  authority  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  well  as  a  refiection 
on  his  wisdom  as  Lawgiver.  Now  to  me  it  is  clear,  that  every 
Pcdobaptist  minister  violates  the  plain,  explicit  law  of  his  com- 
mission, every  time  he  teach  )s  behaving  par  mts,  that  it  is  their 
duty  to  have  their  children  baptized,  (sprinkled)  and  every  time 
he  baptizes  (sprinkles)  them,  because  he  makes  this  institution 
of  more  human  origin,  take  the  place  of  the  divine  institution 
of  believers  baptism,  (whenever  it  is  in  his  power,)  and  thus 
breaks  down  the  authority  of  Christ,  by  "  teaching  for  doctrines 
the  commandments  of  men."  Hear  the  testimony  of  the  fol- 
lowing Pcdobaptist  writers. 

Pisliop  Butler.  "  Positive  duties  do  not  arise  /iiit  of  the  nature  of  tlie  case,  but  from  ex- 
ternal command,  received  ;  nor  would  tliey  be  duties  at  all,  were  it  not  for  such  command 
received  from  Him  whose  creatures  and  subjects  we  are. 

Dr.  Owen. — "Whatever  pretends  to  exceed  the  direction  of  the  Word,  may  be  safely 
rejected  ;  cannot  be  safely  admitted." 

Collins. — "Nothing  is  lawful  in  the  worship  of  God,  but  what  we  have  preceptor  prece- 
dent for." 

Baxter,  in  his  Plain  Scripture  Proof  says.  "  If  any  should  be  so  impudent,  as  to  iay  it  u 
QoX  the  meaning  of  Christ  that  baptism  should  immediately,  without  delay  follow  diaciplin; 


they  are  confuted  by  the  constant  example  of  scripture.  So  that  I  dare  say  thi3  will 
he.  out  of  doubts  with  all  rational,  considerate  and  impartial  Christians. 

Again  he  says  :  "  If  there  he  no  example  given  in  scripture,  of  any  one  that  waa 
baptized  williout  the  profession  of  saving  faith,  nor  any  precept  for  so  doing,  then 
must  we  not  baptize  any  without  it.  But  the  antecedent  is  true  ;  therefore  so  is  the 
consequent.  I  know  of  no  word  in  seripture,  that  giveth  us  the  least  encouragement 
to  bciptize  upon  another's  faith." 

Again  :  "  'vVliat  man,"  says  he,  "dare  go  in  a  way,  whicli  he  hath  neither  precept 
nor  example  to  warrant  it— from  a  way  tliat  hath  a  full  current  of  boih  ?  Who  knovys 
what  will  please  God  but  himself?  Can  that  be  obedience  which  hath  no  command  for  it? 

0  the  pride  of  man's  heart ;  that,  instead  of  being  a  law-obeyer,  will  be  a  law-maker." 

Pedola'ptist. — "If  you  believe  Mr.  Baxter  to  be  an  honest 
man,  how  do  you  reconcile  the  sentiments  contained  in  these 
quotations  with  his  practice  as  a  Peodobaptist? 

Baptist. — I  do  not  conceive  that  it  is  my  duty  to  reconcile 
Mr.  Ba.xter's  and  a  multitude  of  others'  views  with  their  prac- 
tice. How  they  can  believe  as  they  do,  that  "there  is  neither 
precept  nor  example  for  infant  baptism  in  the  Scriptures,"  and 
still  remain  Pedobaptists,  is  to  me  utterly  inconceivable,  unless 

1  suppose  that  they  came  to  some  such  conclusion  as  Jeremy 
Taylor,  who  honestly  confesses:  "I  think  there  is  so  much  to 
be  pretended  against  that  which  I  believe  to  be  truth,  that  there 
is  much  more  truth  than  er/cience  on  our  side."  "The  only 
difficulty  is,  to  concieive  how,  with  such  a  prepondei'ance  of 
evidence  against  them,''  these  men  "should  be  so  unphilo- 
sophical  as  to  helieve  that  their  sentiments  are  true." 

Pedobaptist. — Leaving  to  eminent  Pedobaptists  the  difficult 
task  of  reconciling  their  concessions  with  their  practice,  and 
having  satisfied  myself  on  this  subject,  I  have  only  to  say,  that 
it  would  be  gratifying  to  me,  at  least,  to  hear  you  recapitulate 
briefly  the  ground  we  have  traversed. 

Baptist. — Since  it  has  been  shown,  that  the  great  law  of 
the  commission  requires  faith  as  a  prerequisite  to  baptism,  and 
consequently  does  not  sanction  infant  baptism; — since  it  can- 
not be  proved  that  there  were  any  infants  in  the  household 
baptisms  mentioned,  and  even  if  there  were  many,  it  must  be 
admitted,  that  the  circumstances  described  by  the  pen  of  in- 
spiration, show  clearly,  as  Neander  has  remarked,  that  "the 
narrative  speaks  only  of  adults  or  intelligent  agents;'"* — since 
it  has  been  shown,  that  the  covenant  of  circumcision  furnishes 
no  ground  for  infant  baptism,  as  is  conceded  by  Prof.  Stuart 
and  the  most  eminent  biblical  scholars  of  the  age; — since  it  is 

*  All  the  house  of  Cornelius  frared  God,  and  received  the  Holy  Ghost.  Lydia'g 
household  were  comforted  as  brethren.  The  word  of  the  liord  was  spoken  to  all 
in  the  Jailer's  house,  and  they  all  rejoiced,  believing  in  (jod,  as  well  as  himself. 
All  theliouseof  Crispus  believed  on  the  Lord;  and  the  house  of  Stephanus  addicted 
themselves  to  the  ministry  of  the  Saints.  It  must  be  evident  now,  that  the  things 
affirmed  of  all  these  baptized  households,  cannot  be  applied  to  infants.  Hence,  we 
must  conclude  that  no  infants  were  baptized  in  these  houseg. 


28 

admitted  by  the  most  eminent  Pedobaptist  writers,  that  there 
is  neither  precept  nor  example  for  it  in  the  Scriptures,  and 
that  it  was  unlrnown  in  tlie  apostolical  age; — since  the  voice 
of  history  is  mute,  without  whispering  even  an  allusion  to 
infant  baptism  until  the  days  of  Tertullian  about  A.  D.  200; — 
since  the  silence  of  the  Scriptures  cannot  prove  it  to  be  an 
apostolical  institution,  unless  the  same  evidence  will  prove 
that  Tertulian  lived  in  the  apostolical  age; — since  it  has  been 
admitted,  that  (in  the  apostolical  age)  it  could  not  have  been 
derived  from  proselyte  baptism,  it  having  been  decided  by  the 
most  eminent,  modern  critics,  among  whom  is  Prof.  Stuart, 
that  proselyte  baptism  was  unknown  among  the  Jews  till  after 
the  destruction  of  the  second  temple,  A.  D.  70; — in  short,  since 
the 'most  prominent  arguments,  urged  by  the  ablest  writers  in 
favor  of  iniant  baptism  as  a  divine  institution  h.ave  been  exam- 
ined and  refuted — the  Baptists  consider  the  controvers)'-  about 
the  subjects  of  baptism  as  really  settled.  They  fee!  themselves 
constrained  in  view  of  the  commission,  the  practice  of  the 
apostles  and  the  primitive  Christians,  to  regard  infant  baptism 
as  an  unscriplural  rile,  and  to  maintain  that  believers  in 
Christ  are  the  only  scriptural  subjects  of  baptism.  They  ap- 
peal to  the  Bible  as  their  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  They 
maintain,  that  the  Bible,  "and  not  the  voice  of  tradition,  or 
the  decrees  of  councils,  or  the  bulls  of  Popes — that  the  Bible, 
and  that  alone,  is  the  foundation  of  Christian  faith  and  prac- 
tice;" or,  in  the  words  of  Chillingvvorth,  "The  Bible,  and  the 
Bible  only,  is  the  religion  of  Protestants." 

Pedobaptist. — You  know,  that  when  we  commenced  our 
conversation  on  this  subject,  I  regarded  the  infant  children  of 
believers  as  proper  subjects  of  the  rite  of  baptism,  but  I  am 
now  convinced,  that  the  scriptures  furnish  no  warrant  for  bap- 
tizing infants. — But  you  remarked,  that  your  denomination 
believed  that  immersion  only  is  baptism.  As  I  am  perfectly 
aware  that  I  made  a  great  mistake  wiih  regard  to  the  subjects 
of  baptism,  it  would  afford  me  much  pleasure  to  hear  you  ad- 
vance what  evidence  you  have  to  sustain  your  position,  that 
immersion,  and  that  only,  is  baptism. 

Baptist. — 1  hope  you  will  be  patient,  while  1  proceed. 

I.  The  first  argument  I  shall  advance,  to  prove  that  im- 
mersion only  is  baptism,  is  the  import  of  the  term  Baptizo, 
the  word  used  to  designate  the  ordinance. 

Baptism  is  a  Greek  word,  anglicised  from  baptisma,  which 
is  derived  from  baptizo,  and  this  verb  from  its  primitive  hapto. 


29 

whose  primarj^  moaning  is  to  dip,  plunge,  or  immerse.  For  its 
secondary  meaning  it  has  to  dye,  "  a  signification  growing  out 
of  the  primary  idea,  inasmuch  as  dyeing  was  originally  per- 
formed by  dipping  the  thing  to  be  dyed  into  colouring  matter." 
This  word,  as  Mr.  Carson,  in  his  unanswered  and  unanswerable 
treaties  on  baptism,  shows,  was  first  used  to  designate  dyeing  by 
dipping,  but,  finally,  the  meaning  was  so  extended,  that  it  deno- 
ted dyeing  in  any  manner."  It  is  worthy  of  note  here,  that  bapto, 
only  in  its  primary  meaning,  modifies  baptizo.  "  This  is  appar- 
ent, from  the  fact,  that  bapto  is  never  applied  to  the  ordinance 
of  baptism,  and  baptizo  never  signifies  to  dye.  Baptizo  in 
the  whole  history  of  the  Greek  language,  has  but  one  meaning. 
It  signifies  to  dip  or  immerse,  and  never  has  any  other  mean' 
ing."  "  Each  of  these  words,  therefore,  has  a  specific  pro- 
vince, into  which  the  other  cannot  enter;  while  there  is  a 
common  province,  in  which  either  of  them  may  serve.  Either 
of  them  may  signify  to  dip,  generally  ;  but  the  primitive  cannot 
specifically  express  that  ordinance  to  which  the  derivitive  has 
been  appropriated;  and  the  derivative  cannot  signify  to  (ft/e, 
which  is  a  part  of  the  province  of  the  primitive." 

That  both  of  these  words  mean  to  dip,  plunge,  or  immerse, 

"  ALL  LEXICOGRAPHERS  AND  CRITICS  OFANY  NOTE,  ARK  AGREED," 

Bays  Prof.  Stuart.*  *•  If  any  person  is  disposed  to  question 
this,"  says  Prof.  Jewett  "  he  can  satisfy  himself  by  examining 
places  in  which  the  words  occur  in  Greek.  Out  of  about  two 
hundred  passages,  taken  at  random,  where  these  words  are  em- 
ployed in  their  primary  and  proper  sense,  the  idea  is,  z/i  every 
instance,  to  dip,  plunge,  or  immerse.  I  have  already  remarked, 
that,  in  addition  to  these  significations,  bapto  means  to  dye,  color, 
or  tinge  ;"]"  and  baptizo,  in  its  literal  and  proper  sense,  nerer 
means  anything  but  to  immerse,  dip,  or  plunge  ;  and  when  used 
in  a  figurative  application,  the  figure  entirely  depends  for  its 
force  and  beauty,  on  the  primar)^  idea  of  immersion,  or  plung- 
ing. If  erroneous,  these  positions  can  easily  be  disproved  by 
a  reference  to  the  orignal  classics  ;  but,  adding  my  own  labors, 
to  those  of  the  writers  whose  works  I  have  examined,  I  have 
never  been  able  to  discover  a  single  passage,  which  authorizes 
ine  to  abandon  the  ground  just  taken." 

!*-   - 

''  >I.  Stuart  is  one  of  the  distinguished  professsrs  of  the  Andover  Theological  Sem- 
inary, Mass.,  and  is,  generally,  regarded  by  Pedobaptists,  as  their  ablest  Biblical  scholar 
iu  this  country.  Every  person,  who  has  read  Prof,  i^tiiart's  Essay  ou  bapi:iiji,  o:ight  to 
road  the  Examination  of  that  Essay  by  Prof.  Ripley,  of  Newton,  or  Judd's  re /Jew,  both, 
triumphant  answers,  and  both  written  in  a  "kind  christian  spirit." 

t  "  The  lake  was  tinged  witL  blood."  Homer's  battle  of  the  Frogs,— where  eapto,  not 
B.V.PTIZ0,  is  used. 


so 

As  a  further  confirmation  of  this  fact,  I  would  state  that  Prof*; 
Stuart  has  quoted  passages  fronn  the  Greek  cla.~isical  authors, 
Homer,  Pindar,  Aristotle,  Aristophanes,  Herodotus,  Heraclides 
Ponticus,  Aratus,  Zenophcn,  Piutarnh,  Lucian,  Diodorus  Siou- 
lus,  Plato,  Epictetus,  Hippocrates,  Strabo,  Polybus,  Josephua, 
and  others,  all  of  whom  use  the  words  bapto  and  baptizo,  to 
signify  immerse.  It  is  worthy  of  remark  hero,  that  Prof. 
Stuart,  throughout  the  Greek  classics  and  the  Septuagint,*  as- 
signs to  the  word  &a2>/izo,  only  immerse,  overwhelm.  Hence, 
all  Greek  literature  goes  to  prove  that  it  means  immerse. 
Their  poets,  philosophers,  physicians,  historians,  and  orators, 
use  it  only  in  the  sense  of  inunersion,  dipping,  and  never  attach 
to  it  any  other  meaning.  Not  in  the  whole  range  of  the 
Greek  classics,  can  it  be  found  to  denote  any  thing  else,  than 
to  immerse  or  dip.  Again,  Prof.  Stuart,  on  page  800,  after 
summing  up  his  citations  from  the  classics,  comes  to  this  con- 
clusion. "  It  wore  easy  to  enlarge  this  list  of  testimonies  to 
classic  usage,  but  the  reader  will  not  desire  it.  He  may  see 
many  examples  in  Carson's  recent  publication  on  baptism, 
which  I  did  not  sec  until  after  the  present  dissertation  was 
written.  It  is  impossible  to  doubt,  that  the  words  bapto  and 
baptizo,  have,  in  ths  Greek  classical  writers,  the  sense  oC  dip, 
plunge,  i?nmerse,  sink,  <^c."  But  it  may  be  asked  here,  does  not 
Prof.  Stuart  show  that  the  Greek  classic  writers  use  baptizo  to 
signify  pouring  or  sprinkling  ?  I  answer  no  !  not  a  single  in- 
stance  has  he  adduced  from  the  Greek  classics,  in  which  the 
word  is  used  to  denote  either  to  pour,  or  sprinkle.  Indeed,  he 
has  said  in  private  conversation,  that  "it  cannot  be  translated 
sprinJde.-f  It  is,  therefore,  no  cause  of  wonder,  that  when 
Prof.  Jewelt  commenced  his  investigations  of  this  subjects,  by 
reading  Prof.  Stuart's  essay  on  baptism  that  he  "was  soon  as- 
tonished to  find  in  Stuart's  investigation,  proof,  so  strong  that 
the  word  in  its  literal,  ordinary  sense,  universally  means  to 
immerse, plunge, or  dip.  "  It  looked"  says  he,  as  if  with  this  fact 
before  him,  the  learned  Professor  ought  to  have  become  a  Bap- 
tist."  "I  was  alarmed,"  says  Prof.  Jewett,  and  "  would  have 
given  up  the  inquiry,  hut  could  not."  Finally  after  a  thorough 
examination  of  the  subject,   he  was  compelled  to  admit,  as  a 

*  The  Septuagint  is  the  Greek  version  or  translation  of  the  Old  Testament  from  the 
Hebrew.  It  is  worthy  of  remark  here,  that  there  are  three  different  words  used  in  the 
Hebrew  to  denote  the  three  actions  of  dipping,  pouring,  and  sprinkling.  Taval  or  tebcl 
sifrnifies  to  dip  ;  Saphack,  to  pour,  and  zarak,  to  sprinkle.  In  the  Septuagint  bapto  or 
BAPTIZO  is  the  representative  of  taval,  cheo  of  saphack,  and  raino  of  zaRAK. 

I  See  I5ronson"8  examination  of  Fowler  page  228. 


31 

philologist  and  interpreter  of  tlie  Bible,  that  immersion  arid  that 
only,  is  the  baptism  that  Christ  enjoins." 

That  we  have  taken  a  correct  view  of  this  subject,  viz  : 
That  iminersion  is  the  exclusive  signification  of  Baptizo 
is  tVankiy  ackno\vledo;ed,  by  some  of  the  most  learned,  and  em- 
inent  Pcdoboptists  of  various  denoiiunations.  We  might  with 
propriety  remark  here,  that  the  learned  v>orld  docs  not  afford 
more  competent  authority  than  the  following. 

John  Calvin,  th?  cclcbrnted  founder  of  ttio  Presbjtcriaii  chnrrh,  says :  "that  baptism 
was  administered  by  John  and  Christ  by  plunging  the  whole  body  underwater."  Again  he 
fays  :  '  the  word  baptizo^iirnif  pf  to  iuunerse,  and  it  is  certain  the  rite  of  immersion  was 
1  ractisod  by  the  ancient  chuTch." 

VVitsius. — "  It  cannot  be  denied,  that  the  native  signification  of  the  words  baptein  and 
BAPTIZEIN,  is  to  plunge  or  dip." 

Ruddaens. — "  The  v/ord  baptizein"  is  always  to  be  interpreted  of  immersion," 

Alstidius. — "  liAPTizwN  signifies  only  to  immerse." 

Zanoliins. — "The  proper  siguilication  of  baptizo,  is  to  immerse,  plunge  under,  to  over- 
whelm in  water." 

Altiuffius. — "For  baptism  is  immersion,  when  the  whole  body  is  iinmerged  ;  but  th3 
term  biptism,  is  never  used  with  respect  to(-i>rinklins." 

I?eza. — "  Christ  ccmiinanded  us  to  be  baptized  ;  by  which  word,  it  is  certain,  immersion 
is  signified.     To  be  baptized  in  water,  signifies  no  other  than  to  be  iMMtRSKD  in  water." 

Casaubon. — "  This  was  the  r.te  of  I  aptizing,  that  persons  weh-e  plunged  into  the 
water:  which  t'lo  very  word  baptizein  sulficienliy  declares."" 

Mi:  Leigh. — "The  native  and  proper  signification  of  it  [baptize]  is  to  dip  into  water,  or 
to  plunge  under  water." 

Bossuot,  bishop  of  Menux. — "To  baptize  signifies  to  plunge,  as  is  granted  by  all  the 
world." 

Dr.  Campbell,  late  Principal  of  the  Marscliale  College  at  Aberdeen,  a  Presbyterian, 
the  learned  translator  of  the  four  Gospels  with  critic  d  notes,  says  :  ''  The  word  dapti/.e- 
IX,  both  in  sacred  authors  and  in  classical,  signifies  to  dip,  to  plu.nge,  to  immerse.  It  is  al- 
ways construed  suitably  to  this  meaning." 

Augusti. — "The  word  bai)tism,  according  to  ETYMOLoay  and  usage,  signifies  to  im- 
merse, SCBiMERQE,  &C.,  and  THE  CHOICE  OP  THE  WORD  BETRAYS  AN  AGE  IN  WHICH  THB 
LATTER    rt'STO.M   OF    SPRINXLINO    HAD    NOT  BEEN    INTRODUCED." 

"Prof.  Porsoii,  of  the  Unirersity  of  Cambridge,  and  Episcopalian,  acknowledged  by  all 
competent  judges  to  have  been  the  first  scholar  in  Knglaml,  pronounced  it  ABSi'RDto 
imagine  that  [baptizo]  had  any  other  proper  meaning  tlian  to  dip  entirely,  to  plunge,  or 
immerse." 

Martin  Luther. — Speaking  of  children,  he  says:  "  They  ought  to  be  completely  im- 
mersed, FOR  TilE  ETViMOLOGY  OF  THE  WORD  (RAPTIS.Vr,1  EVIDENTLY  REQUIRES  IT."  Again, 
he  says  :  "  If  you  consider  what  baptism  signifies,  you  shall  see  the  same  thing  (immersion) 
required  ;  for  it  signifies,  that  the  old  man  of  our  nativity,  that  is,  fiillofsiiis,  which  is  en- 
tirely of  flesh  and  blood,  may  be  overwhelmed  by  divine  grace.  The  manner  of  baptism, 
therefore,  should  correspond  to  the  signification  of  baptism,  that  it  may  show  a  certain  and 
plain  sign  of  it."  "  This  is  a  sentiment  w  hich  well  becomes  the  great  Reformer.  Had  he 
and  his  associates  consistently  carried  out  the  whole  principle  involvcl  in  this  expression, 
the  Reformation  would  have  been  more  comjilete  ;  they  would  have  cut  the  last  link  which 
bound  the  Reformed  to  the  Papal  church.  But  alas!  they  failed  here.  No  wonder,  that, 
when  the  Baptists  in  Germany  began  to  agit;ite  this  subject,  Melancthon  said  to  Luther.'' 
"  Now  the  devil  has  attacked  us  in  oar  weakest  point." 

Having  thus  shown,  that  the  clear,  proper  signification 
of  the  term  baptizo  is  to  dip,  plunge,  immerse,  and  that  many 
of  the  most  eminent  and  learned  Pedobaptist  writers  frankly, 
and  explicitly,  bear  their  testimony  to  the  same  tact,  I  cannot 
avoid  the  inevitable  conclusion,  that  Jesus  Christ  intended, 
(when  giving  his  commission,)  to  enjoin  immersion,  or  he 
would  never  have  made  choice  of  the  word  he  did,  to  designate 
the  ordinance. 


32 

But  as  there  are  many  who  will  reject  this  evltlence,  let  us 
lake  another  view  of  the  subject.  Suppose  that  two  divisions 
of  the  Greek  church,  should,  unhappily,  fall  into  a  dispute, 
about  the  legitimate  meaning  of  our  English  word  immerse, 
and  one  division  should  maintain,  that  the  specific  import  of 
the  term  is  bapiizo,  thapto,  to  dip,  to  bury.  The  other  should 
contend,  that  the  term  is  generic,  and  signifiies  either  c/teo,  to 
pour ;  rantizo,  to  sprinkle ;  nipto,  to  wash  the  hands,  face,  or 
ieet  ;  louo,  to  wash  or  bathe  the  body  ;  or  katliairo,  to  cleanse,  or 
baptize,  to  dip,  or  in  fact,  it  means  the  application  of  water  in 
any  way.  The  question  that  naturally  arises  now,  is  this : 
Can  the  meaning  of  this  term  be  ascertained?  Who  possesses 
the  requisite  knowledge  to  determine  its  meaning,  and  thiis 
end  the  controversy  1  Why,  unquestionably  the  English, 
those  who  use  the  English  language.  If  they  tlecide  that  it 
signifies  to  dp,  to  immtrge,  to  bury,  and  that  no  cth;;  Jmeanii  g 
has  ever  been  attached  to  it  as  far  back  as  the  language  cau 
be  traced  ;  I  ask,  would  not  tliis,  ought  not  this,  to  settle  the 
question  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt  ?  Would  it  not  be  the 
height  of  folly,  to  demur  against  the  decision  of  so  competent 
a  tribunal  ?  Now,  where  is  there  a  word  in  any  language,  that 
is  used  generally  to  denote  the  action  of  dipping  or  immers- 
ing, and  at  the  same  time  signifies  pouring,  or  sprinkling  t 
Where  is  there  a  language  that  ever  had  a  "  local  habitation," 
name,  or  existence,  that  has  not  a  definite  term  expressive  of 
the  act  of  immersion  ?  Have  the  G.'teksnoterm  specifically 
expressive  of  this  act  ?  Can  they  definitely  and  exclusively 
convey  the  idea  of  immersion?  Most  asauri'dly  ;  for,  from  the 
days  of  Homer  until  now,  they  have  always  "understood  the 
•word  baptizo,  to  denote  the  act  of  immersii>n,  and  ra/ifzzo^  to  de- 
note the  act  of  sprinkling.  And  if  you  strike  the  words  lapto 
and  baptizo  from  their  vocabulary,  they  have  none  more  defi- 
fute  to  express  the  act  immersion.  If  this  word  does  net  de- 
riote  it  with  certainty,  then  that  rich  [definite]  language  is  des-- 
titute  of  a  certain  sign  to  denote  this  simple  common  act.- 
Examine  such  a  work  as  Tittman's  Synonymes  of  the  Greek 
Testament,  and  you  will  not  find  a  word  placed  there,  as  the 
equivalent  of  baptizo."  I  am  aware  that  it  may  be  said  here, 
that  Barnes  in  his  note  on  Mat.  3  :  6,  says  ;  "  the  word  bap- 
tize, si  (unifies  originally  to  tinge,  to  dye,  to  stain  /"  and,  that  Ur. 
Dwight  affirms,  that  "</te  body  of  learned  Critics,  and  lexicog- 
raphers  declare,  that  the  original  meaning  of  baptizo  and  bapio, 


33 

J3  to  tinge,  stain,  dye,  or  color ;  and  that  when  it  means  isimek. 
siox,  it  is  only  in  an  occasional  and  secondary  sense.* 

Nov/  reader,  that,  with  one  view,  you  may  see  what  a  strik. 
ing  contrast  there  is,  between  Pedobaptist  writers  on  this  sub- 
ject. We  shall  again  quote  the  language  of  Prof.  Stuart,  who 
says  :  "  It  Is  impossible  to  doubt,  that  the  words  haj)to  and  hap- 
tizo  have,  in  the  Greek  classic  writers,  the  sense  of  dip,  plunge, 
immerse,  sink."  "  All  lexicographers  and  critics  of  any  note, 
are  agreed  in  this."  Again,  throughout  the  Greek  classics  and 
Septuagint,  he  assigns  to  baptizo,  only  the  sense  of  immerse, 
(xver whelm. "■\     (See  page  29th   and  30th,  of  this  tract). 

Query . —  Arc  Dr.  Dwight  and  and  Barnns  "critics  o/'any 
jfOTR  ?     Who  shall  decide  when  Doctors  disagree? 

Now  the  question  is,  are  these  contradictory  statements 
true  ?  Does  baptize  from  baptizo  signify  to  tinge,  to  dye,  to 
stain,  as  affirmed  by  Barnes  and  Dwight,  or  to  immerse,  over- 
whelm, as  asserted  by  Prof.  Stuart  ?  "  Does  the  body  of  learn- 
ed  critics,  make  immersion  a  secondary  and  occasional  meaning 
rf  the  word?     Let  us  make  a  little  examination  of  this  subject. 

We  will  commence  bv  introducing  the  testimony  of  a  native 
Greek. 

Stoulzii,  in  a  wor'c  puljlishel  in  ISlC,  sa^s  :  "The  ■Western  c!nirc;i  has  ilepartel 
from  tlie  imitntion  of  Jesus  Christ,  an  i  h;is  dispelel  from  vievv  all  the  suMimity  of 
tliis  external  sign.  In  short,  it  has  done  violence  liotli  to  the  word  anil  the  idea,  in  prr.c 
tiding  baptism  by  aspersioii,  the  very  enunuintion  of  vvliicliis  a  ludiiToiis  contradic- 
tion. In  truth,  iho  wnrd  baptizo  imniergo  (immerse,)  has  but  one  signification.  It 
si snififS  literally  and  invariably,  •  to  plunje.'  Baptism  and  immersion  are  identical ; 
and  to  say  baptism  by  aspersion  is  the  same  ^^s  to  say  immersion  by  aspersion,  or  any 
other  contradiction  in  ternis." 

Crysostom,  one  of  the  greiitcst  men  in  the  ancient  Greek  church,  explains  baptism  E9 
being  an  incmcr?ion  and  Ilien  an  ejnersion.  And  though  he  speaks  of  it  in  Innumcrablo 
instances  in  13  folio  volumes,  never  alludes  to  sprinkling,  but,  on  the  contrary,  defines  it  to 
bo,  "  a  plung'iug  iato  water  and  raising  out  of  it,"  and  says,  "  that  we  enter  into  tlie  water 
a  intoagrave,"   and,t!iat  "the  whole  man  is  completely  concealed  by  inmiersion." 

Tlieophylact,  another  of  tlie  Greek  Fathers,  sa}'s  :  "  Baptism  is  performed  by  three  im- 
niersious." 

The  Greek  Patriarch  Jeremiah,  says  :  "  The  ancients  were  not  accustomed  to  sprinkle 
the  candidate,  but  to  immerse  him." 

*  Dr.  Cox,  in  reply  to  Dr.  Dwight's  assertion,  s.ij-s  :  "  This  is  passing  strange,  an  i 
I  confi>ss,  that  the  only  way  in  which  upon  th^;  principles  of  christian  chanty,  I  can 
account  for  eo  untrue  a  statement,  is  by  concluding,  that  Dr.  Dwight,  nr-ver  examineil 
the  authorities."  He  then  refers  to  several  Lexicon?,  and  says:  "  I  demand  only  a 
simple  inspection  of  them,  as  an  answer  to  this  strange  and  erroneous  representation." 

t  Or.  Campbell,  wl.en  speaking  of  the  fact,  that  "  the  baptized  are  sai  I  avabaveik, 
to  arise,  emerge  or  asct-nd,  Mat  3:  16,  apo  touudato?,,  and  Acts  8:  39,  ex  tou  udatog, 
from,  or  out  of  the  water,  says  :  Let  it  be  observed  further,  that  the  verbs  raino,  and 
rantizo,  used  in  scripture  for  sprinkling,  are  never  construed  in  this  manner.  When, 
therefoie,  the  Greek  word  baptizo  (rendered  I  baptize,)  is  adopted,  I  may  say,  rather 
than  translated  into  modern  languages,  the  mode  of  construction  ought  to  be  preserved, 
«o  far  as  may  conduce  to  suggest  its  original  import.  It  is  to  be  regretted,  that  we  have 
BO  much  e\'idencethat  even  good  and  le.arned  men  allow  thei  •  udgments  to  be  warped 
by  the  sentiments  and  custorns  of  the  sect  they  prefer.  The  true  partizan,  of  whatever 
denomination,  always  inclines  to  correct  the  diction  of  the  spirit,  by  that  of  th'J 
party," 


84 

Cristojiulus,  aGreek,  in  his  confession  of  faith,  says:  '-We  follow  tlia  example  of  tlie 
apostles,  wlioiiiiniersed  tlie  candidate  under  water." 

Olearius,  in  liis  Persian  Travels,  says :  "  The  Muscovites  call  those  who  are  not  imnreraeJ 
in  baptism  'sprinkled  christians,'  and  therefore  rebaptize  such  as  join  their  church." 

Walch,  says  :  "  The  Greeks  regard  immersion  as  essential  to  baptism,  and  reject  sprink- 
ling."   ^ 

Augusti. — "TheOricntia!  church  has  not  only  preserved  unchanged  the  custom  of  im- 
mersion, but  declare  it  so  essential,  tliat  they  rebaptize  those  who  were  only  sprjnklej 
and,  by  way  of  contempt,  call  Ihein  '  sprinkled  clirislians.' " 

These  quotations,  with  what  has  preceded,  show  the  invar- 
iablc  sentiment  of  the  whole  Greek  church.  Indeed,  where 
can  there  be  found,  at  the  present  day,  a  learned  lexicographer, 
theolojiical  critic,  or  commentator,  that  will  venture  his  reputa. 
tion  by  the  assertion,  that  the  Greek  church  have  not  invaria- 
bly practised  immersion  as  baptism  with  person3  in  health?  or 
that  immersion  is  not  the  primary,  radical  meaning  of  baptizo  ? 
Now  let  us  turn  to  the  testimonies  of  some  of  our  modern 
critics,  and  then  to  the  lexicographers. 

Prof.  Fritsciio,  a  disciple  of  Hermann,  in  hisCom.  ou  Mat.  3:  6,  says:  "  Tliat  baptism  was  ^ 
pel  formed  not  by  sprinklinfr,  but  by  immersion,  is  evident,  not  only  from  the  nature  of  thoi 
'(iord,but  from  Kom.  6  :  4." 

Buttniann,  in  his  largest  Grammar,  simply  puts  downj  "  bapto  to  imraerf  e"  (tauchnn). 

Brcaiier. — "  The-  word  corresponds  in  signification  with  the  German  word,  taufen,  tos-inis 
into  the  deep." 

The  author  of  Free  Inquiry  respecting  Baptism. — "  Baptism  is  perfectly  identical  witlJ 
our  word  immersioi!,  or  submersion  (taucheu  odor  uutertauchen).  If  immersion  undeil 
Water  is  for  the  purpose  of  cleansing  or  washing,  then  the  word  means  cleansing  or  wash-| 
iiig." 

Bretschneider,  in  his  Theology. — "An  entire  immersion  belongs  to  the  nature  of  bap- 
tisij'.  This  is  the  meaning  of  the  word."  This  writer  is  confessedly  the  most  critical  lexi-| 
cographerof  the  New  Testament." 

Kaiaer,  Bib.  Tlieol. — "  Bapto  is  a  perfect  imnimersion  ;  Baptizo,  to  sink  nearly  tt>^ 
tl.'C  liuttc!!!  in  water."    These  are  his  deliiiiiioiis. 

Paullus,  in  his  Com.  siiys  :  "  The  word  baptize  signifies  in  Grtek,  sometimes  to  fm- 
mers?,  sometimes  to  submerge." 

RheiJihard'a  Ethics. — "In  spiinklinj,  the  symbolical  meaning  of  the  ordinance  is 
wlioll/lost." 

We  will  now  turn  our  attention  to  the  testimony  of  Lexicog- 
raphers,  and  commence  with  the  testimony  of  the  excellent 
Greek  and  English  Lexicon  of  Dr,  John  Jones,  which  gives  the 
plain  obvious  import  of  words  without  reiining  or  accommoda- 
ting : — (The  reader  will  bear  in  mind  here,  that  baptizo  is  tho 
only  word  in  the  original  scriptures,  used  to  designate  iho  lit) 
of  baptism,  and  is  the  only  one,  anglecised  in  our  language 
baptize.  Of  course  if  we  can  discover  the  true  meaning  o'ihaj)-  > 
tlzo  we  shall  then  ascertain  what  is  essential  to  the  rite  of  j 
baptism).  \ 

1.  Jones.^-'Bapto,  I  dip;  I  dye,  stain.  Baptizo. — I  plunge;  Iplunge  in  water,  dip.  ' 
bury,  overwhelm.  2.  Richardson's  Lexicon,  justly  regarded  as  one  of  the  most  valuable 
ever  pnblished.^-Baptizo  is  rendered,  to  dip,  or  merge  in  water,  to  sink,  to  plunge,  to 
immerse.  3.  I'arkhnrst. — To  dip,  immerse,  submerge,  plunge.  4.  Donegan's. — Toitn- 
nierse,  submerge,  saturate,  drench,  &e..  5.  Sciileusner. — To  immerse,  to  plunge, to 
sink  into  water.  6.  Pickering. — To  dip,  immerse,  submerge,  plunge,  sink.  7.  Had- 
rian.— To  immerse. 

The  definitions  of  the  remaininjones,  we  shall  give  in  classes.  8.  Burlileus,  9.  Conlon, 
10.  Coie,  11.  Plautinus,  13.  ttockius,  13.   Grove,  U,  Xilander,   15.  Hopper,  16.  Hax^    . 


35 

tuJig,  17.  Junius,  IS.  Go-sner,  1!».  Tusanus,  20.  Const.iiitine,  21.  Ewing,  22.  S-JiieveHiiP^ 
iui|>rovctI  by  Ilil!,'Boy(-,r,  and Eutic.  Tlic  fifleeu last.  Ijesicogriiplieis  ^'ive,  generally,  tlia 
following  lieiiuitions,  to  Jii',  to  plunge,  iiuiuerse,  wash,  and  one  or  two  of  theiu  add,  to 
RjjiinUle. 

•23.  "  Strjjiiens,  24.  Scapula,  2.>.  Suii^er  "n  Ik  th  of  hi.-i  Lexicons.  26.  Selileusner,  in 
boJh;  27.  Hedericus,  28.  S  •,h■:ei(^•,^•,  S'*-  Wahl,  39.  Bretfo!ineirteir,  31.  Passow,  32.  Ro-t, 
and  others,  nut  only  make  ininiersii  n  tlie  primary  and  radi'-.-;!  meaning  of  the  word,  but 
beiiause  (qui,  daher)  it  is  so,  it  si,;;iiifies  s;iy  ility,  to  dye,  bathe,  W(;sh  ;  (*he  consequence 
of  dipping,)  anil  one  or  two  of  t!;cni  add,  to  sprinkle.  But  it  is  easy  to  se/-,  that  accord- 
ing to  the  reas(j!!  alleged,  it  must  nie.-;n, cither  in  reality,  or  in  the  cuucep.iun  cf  the  wri- 
ters who  so  employ  it,  to  be  sprinkled  so  as  to  l>e  wet  all  over." 

"  Prof.  Rost,  the  principal  Greek  lexicographer  now  living, 
in  his  stand.ird  German  Greek  Lr-xicon,  revi.sed  with  the  as- 
sistance of  a  native  Greek,  puts  down  as  the  primiiry  significa- 
tion ol^fill  such  word  ^  us 2)lu7}g€,  immerse, and  submerse,  (tauchen, 
cintauch  n,  untert:\v,chen.)  bapto  ^  but,  under  the  words  zrasft, 
?iT/,  poM'-,  r.nd  tlie  hl\e,  '  waschen,  benetzen,  giessin,  begiessen,' 
though  lie  gives  co;;ioas  definitions  in  Greek,  he  iiever  employs 
the  word  bfipto,  or  any  of  its  derivatives.  Can  any  thing  bo 
more  to  the  point." 

As  we  have  pursued  this  examination  as  far  as  we  design  to, 
with  regard  to  lexicographical  testimony,  we  proceed  to  in- 
q;;ire  what  is  the  testimony  given  by  these  eminent  Critics, 
and  Lexicographers?  Do  they  all,  or  even  tho  body  of  them 
endorse  the  assertions  of  D wight  and  Barnes,  that  the  original 
meaning  of  baptizo,  is  to  tinge,  dye,  color?  No!  not  oven 
one  gives  that  as  the  original,  primary  meaning  ;  and,  but  a 
very  fjw  give  it  as  a  cons,  quential  one.  Do  they  all  givo 
sprinkling,  as  the  radical  primary  meaning  of  the  word?  No  * 
not  one  ;  and  there  are  hnt  two  or  three,  that  even  mention  ths 
term.  The  same  may  be  said  respecting  pouring  and  cleans- 
ing. Do  they  all  fs^ixoicashing,  as  the  primary,  original  mean. 
ing  of  the  word  ?  Again,  the  answer  is  in  the  negative  ;  and 
til  re  are  but  abjut  two  thfi'ds  of  the  Lexicons,  that  give  it  aa  a 
secondary  or  consequential  meaning.  Do  they  al!  give  dip, 
plunge  or  immerse,  as  the  primary  radical  meaning  of  the  word  ? 
The  answer  is  now,  for  tiie  first  time,  in  the  i'.fnrraative  ;  and 
their  is  not  a  dissenting  voice  to  this,  among  all  the  lexicogra- 
phers and  critics  we  have  examined.  Ladeed,  the  united,  unan- 
imous  testimony  of  the  thirty-three  Lexicons,  [and  I  am  ac- 
quaintod  with  no  other's,]  and  all  the  critics,  we  have  exarain- 
ed  [and  not  one  to  my  knowledge  is  a  Baptist.]  goes  to  confirm, 
the  statement  of  Prof.  Stuart.  Hence,  the  statement  ofDwight 
and  Barnes,  rests  on  their  own  ipse  dixit  or  assertion,  without 
even  a  "lexicograplier  or  critic  oi"  any  note,"  as  endorser. 

But  suppose  wo  admit  as  truth,  the  assertions  of  Dwight 
and  Barnes,  "  that  the  primary,  original  meaning  of  Baptizo,, 
\s  to  tinge,  stain,  dye,  or  color,'^     Then  it  follows;  that  Chris| 


36 

commanded  his  apostles  to  tinge,  stain,  dye,  or  color,  his  be- 
lieving subjocts;  or  else,  that  ho  used  the  word  out  of  its  or- 
dinari' sens-^,  and  that  too,  without  even  advertising  the  apos- 
ties  of  the  fact.  Now  if  we  admit,  that  he  used  the  word  out 
of  its  ordinary  sense,  (and  therefore,  the  Tedobaptints  are  justi- 
fied in  inter()retin<r  it  to  sprinkle,)  th(>n  it  might,  with  equal 
propriet)'',  be  adip.itted,  that  he  used  the  word  tnetanoieo,  to  re- 
pent, out  of  its  ordinary  sense,  (and  therefore,  the  Papists  are 
justified  in  trajislating  it  do  penance.)  Grant  the  same  liberty 
to  infidels,  and  they  would  find  no  difficulty  in  proving  by  the 
Bible,  that  there  is  no  hereafter.  Indeed,  were  they  now  to 
follow  the  example  of  Pedobaptists  in  the  interpretation  ofthis 
word,  they  would  find  no  difticulty  in  proving  that  all  the  hap- 
piness and  misery  of  man  is  confined  within  the  narrow  bound- 
ariesof  this  life.  This  argument  if  we  substitute  the  primitive 
immersion,  for  tinge,  dye,  etc.,  would  be  conclusive  against 
sprinkling  and  pouring. 

But  it  may  be  asked,  why  do  some  of  ihese  lexicographers 
give  to  dye,  or  tinge,  as  one  of  the  definitions  of  baptizo.  I  an- 
swer, before  Mr.  Carson  issued  his  treaties  on  baptism,  both 
hapto,  and  baptizo,  were  regarded  as  perfectly  synonymous  in 
meaning,  but  to  him  belongs  the  honor  of  dicovering,  that  the 
primitive  word  bapto,  has  two  significations,  the  primary  to 
dip,  the  secondary,  to  dye  ;  and,  that  baptizo,  in  the  whole  range 
of  Greek  literature,  has  only  the  sense  of  dip,  or  immerse. 
Prof.  Stuart,  notices  this  distinction,  for  he  has  not  given  to 
bapiizo,  the  sense  of  to  dye,  while  he  has,  to  bapto. 

It  may  be  asked  here,  if  the  Greak  baptizo,  does  not  signify 
cither  to  pou7-,  or  sprinkle;  why,  have  two  or  three  of  these 
lexico?is  gi\ en  this  meaning  ?  I  reply,  a  number  of  these  lexi- 
cons have  been  written  since  pouring  and  sprinkling  have  come 
into  use  ;  and,  I  believe,  it  is  a  general  rule  with  lexicogra- 
phers,  first,  to  give  the  definition  of  words  according  to  their 
real  import ;  and  then,  if  a  largo  portion  of  people  use  the  word 
in  a  new  and  different  sense,  to  superadd  that.  The  same  ques- 
tion  maybe  raised  in  regard  to  wash  and  cleanse,  but  these  will 
be  noticed  in  their  proper  place. 

Now,  every  person  acquainted  with  the  laws  of  interpreta- 
tion, will  admit,  that  the  primary,  radical  import  of  a  word, 
should  always  be  taken  as  the  true  one,  unless,  something  in 
the  circumstances  of  the  case,  or  structure  of  the  passage,  ab- 
solutely requires  another,  a  different  meaning.  This  is  a  set. 
tied  rule  of  exposition  ;    the  purport  of  which,  is  adopted  by 


37 

nil  interpretora.*  Is  there  any  thing  in  a  single  passage,  in 
which  the  (tidinance  of  christian  Baptism,  is  myntioned  in  tho 
New  Testament,  that  absolutely  requires  us  to  depart  from 
thisca/2o;?,  by  assigning  to  the  term  baptizo  any  other  than  its 
primary,  ordin.iry  import. f  Indeed,  there  are  many  things,  in 
tho  sacred  record,  th  it  teach  us,  that  we  are  not  at  liberty  to 
depart  from  the  primitive  rite  of  immersion  [baptisim].  It  is  a 
solemn  thing,  to  alter  the  word,  or  the  ordinances  of  God. 
Two  of  the  SJ7JS  of  Aaron,  in  the  offering  of  incense,  made,  a 
change  in  a  single  circumstance,  anA  fire  from  the  Lord  deslroi/ed 
ihc.m.  Jehovah  will  be  sanciifed  in  them  that  come  nigh  him,  and 
before  all  the  people  he  trill  be  glorified. 

"  As  tho  principle  of  interpretation  here  involved  is  of  great 
importancj,  I  may  bj  allowed  to  illustrate  by  a  familiar  exam- 
ple. 1  give  to  A.  B.  a  promissory  note,  payable  on  demand. 
Now,  I  am  bound  to  pay  the  note  whenever  presented;  and  I 
cannot  plead,  that  the  words  « on  demand,'  should  be  literally 
construed  ;  that  certain  circumstances  make  it  probable,  they 
are  not  used  in  their  ordinary  sense.  The  holder  will  justly 
urge,  that  these  words  have  a  definite  and  well  ascertained 
meaning,  and  1  must  satisfy  his  claim  forthivith,  unless  1  can 
show  it  is  impossible,  that  in  my  case  the  phrase  should  be  un- 
derstood according  to  its  usual  signification.  The  burden  of 
proof  lies  on  me,  and  I  must  make  it  evident  beyond  dispute, 
that  the  ter^ns  cannot  possibly  have  the  customary  sense,  or  I 
I  shall  be  ob'iged  to  liquidate  the  debt." 

•'  So  in  the  case  before  us,  it  is  not  enough  that  there  are  ap- 
parent improbabilities  opposed  to  the  customarj'  use  of  the  term 
in  question  ;  the  ordinary  force  of  it  must  be  plainly  impos  ible, 
or  we  must  retain  its  usual  sense.  But  no  such  iuipossibility 
exists,"  as  we  have  shown  by  Prof.   Stuart. 

Finally,  it  is  a  self-evident  fact, that  the  usus  loquendi,  t'^at  is 
the  practical  use  of  a  word  among  the  best  writers  and  speakers 
of  a  language,  must  determine  its  meaning.  This  is  the  sourcj 
or  fountain,  to  which  all  lexicographers  are  obliged  to  resort,  for 
their  knowledge.  This  is  the  highest — the  only  ultimate  au- 
thority.    Now,  setting  aside  the  testimonies  of  lexicographers, 

*  Mr.  Ferguson,  a  very  learned  man,  says  :  "  If  men  may  be  permitted  to  forsake  the 
natural  and  genuine  sense  of  words,  where  the  matter  is  capable  of  it;  they  may,  not- 
vithstanding  their  di'Clariiig  themselves  to  believe  the  Gospel,  yet  believe  nothin,' at  all 
of  the  christian  faith."  "We  are  not  to  forsake  the  genuine  and  natural  significa  ion  cf 
words,  unless  their  be  the  highest  evidence,  that  the  author  did  otherwise  intend  t!ie  ii," 
saith  the  civil  law.  And,  as  Austin,  says :  "  the  proper  signification  of  words  is  alwaya 
to  be  retained,  unless  necessity  enforces  us  to  expound  them  otherwise." 

t  Prof.  Sluari,  speaking  of  the  circumstances  connected  with  the  rite  of  baptism,  ia 
the  New  Testament,  says  :  "  I  find  none,  I  am  quite  ready  to  concede,  wliich  seems  ab- 
Bolutely  to  determine  that  iinmc^rsion  was  not  practised,"    This  is  all  we  usk. 


58 

(he  meaning  ofhaptiz)  can  be  definitely  dutennined  by  Greek 
cliissica]  usiige,  and  that,  beyond  all  reasonable  dispute  ;  or,  it 
follows,  that  it  is  impossible  to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  any 
word  in  Greek.  "  The  learned  Greeks  for  t\vo  thousand  seven 
hundred  years,  have  decided  hy  iisage,  that  tho  word  signifies  to 
dip,  to  immerse  ;  con.sequentlv>  it  does  not  mean  to  pour,  or 
sprinkle."  It  is  utterly  futile  for  any  man  to  attempt  to  shake 
this  authority,  as  well  might  he  undertake  to  level  the  Alega- 
nies,  or  "remove  the  I'ock  of  (ribralter."  "  Learning,  ingenu- 
it}-,  sophistry,  great  names,  positive  assertions,  are  all  in  vain, 
when  put  in  requisition  for  this  purpose.  After  all  such  impo- 
tent attempts,  the  simple  authentic  fact,  that  myriads  of 
Greeks"  fi-om  the  days  of  Homer,  (the  oldest  profane  Greek 
Wiiter,  M'ho  flourished  m.ore  than  two  thousand  seven  hundred 
years  since.)  "until  the  present  time,  have  used  the  word 
invariably  to  signify  immersion,  and  figuratively  overwhelm- 
ing, stands  out  in  bold  relief  before  a  candid  and  learned  world." 
Here,  then,  with  this  universally  acknowledged  fact,  and  the 
concurrent  testimony  of  so  man};-  eminent,  learned,  and  criti- 
cal standard  authors,  together  with  the  united  testimonies  of 
33  Greek  L^-xicons^  on  the  primpry,  literal  meaning  of  the  word, 
we  arrive  at  the  po.'itive  conclusion,  that  immersion  is  really 
baptism,  which  could  not  actually  be  the  case,  if  b;iptism  is 
'neccssaiily  any  thing  else  but  immersion.  VVe  are  led,  there- 
fore, by  classic  U3;ige,  and  the  testimonies  of  critics  and  lexicog- 
raphers, to  the  irresistible  concluhion,that  baptism  is  immersion, 
and  nothing  else.  Now,  if  baptism  is  actual!}'  immersion 
(which  is  admitted  by  all.)  and  if  sprinkling  is  actually  b;iptism, 
then,  sprinkling  is  actually  immersion.  Xnd  who  will  contend 
for  this  ARSiTRDiTY  ?  yet  those  virtually  do,  who  contend  that 
spiinkling  is  baptism. 

But  I  proceed  to  the  next  proposition. 

II.  Our  second  Akgumea'tis  derived  from  the  FicrRAXivE 

tSE    OK    THE    WORD. 

The  beauty  and  force  of  a  figure,  can  only  be  seen,  as  it  refers 
to  the  literal  signification  ;  it  is  generally  used  for  illustration 
or  emphasis.  "In  this  figurative  sense,  baptizo is  used  in  the 
New  Testament  to  signify  immersion  or  overwhelming."  Thus, 
in  Luke  12  :  50.  "I  have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  wilh,  and 
how  am  I  straightened  till  it  be  accomplished,"  refering  evident-, 
ly  to  the  sufferings  he  was  to  endure.  Dr.  Campbell  has  justly 
rendered  the  passage,  "  J  have  an  immersion  to  undergo."  Dr. 
Doddridge  paraphrases  it,  "  I  know  I  shall  shortly  be^'lunged  in, 


39 

the  most  overwhelming  distress.  Prof.  Stuart,  "  [  am  about 
to  be  overwhelmed  with  sufforinps,  and  I  am  greatly  distressed 
■with  the  prospect  of  them."  Siraihir  exainples  arc  found  in 
Mark  10  :  38,39;  Mutt.  3  :  11,  &c.  We  see  our  Savior 
"sunk  in  deep  waters  of  affliction,"  overwhehiicd  with  suffer- 
ings by  "  tlie  waves  and  billows  of  anguish  rolling  over  him." 
'This  evidently  reR'rs  to  the  radical  meaning  of  the  word  ;  "  any 
idea,  short  of  a  complete  imviersion,  is  tame  and  insipid." 

The  word  is  figuratively  used  to  signil'y  a  buri.il. — Rom.  6  ; 
3,  4 — "  Know  yc  not  that  so  many  of  us  ao  were  baptized  into  .le- 
sus  Christ,  were  baptized  into  his  death  1  Therefjre  wk  ark 
EUPJED  WITH  iiiji  i?Y  BAPTISM  into  death  ;  that,  like  as  Christ 
was  raised  up  from  thy  dead,  by  the  glory  of  tlie  Father,  even 
s  )  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life."  In  Col.  2  :  12,  the 
same  figurj  occurs  :  "  Buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  also 
ye  are  risen  with  him  throuoh  the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God, 
■wlio  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead."  "  It  seems  too  plain  for 
argument,  that  baptism  is  here  compared  to  a  burial,  in  which, 
the  believer,  being  'dead  to  sin,'  (Rom.  6  :  2,)  is  'buried'  in 
baptism,  and  from  this  emblematic  grave,  he  rises  again  to 
a  new  and  spiritual  lilb.  The  figure  ia  apt,  heaiiliful,  and  im- 
pressive, if  baptism  is  immersion  ;  but  it  has  no  apparent  per- 
tinency, if  any  thin^  else  is  baptism." — The  important  bearing 
of  this  passage  will  be  seen,  as  "it  i.s  conceded  by  eminent 
Pedubaptists  themselves,  that  'the  mass  of  unprejudiced  read- 
ers,' would  perceive  ia  it  -an  allusion  to  the  practic(!  of  bapti/. 
ing  by  immersion.'  "  These  two  parallel  texts  contain  ^"  God't; 
own  explanation  of  his  own  ordinance.  And  hero  wc  may 
admire  the  divine  wisdom  and  goodness."  The  "  translators 
of  ths  Bible,  by  adopting,  not  translating  the  Greek  words  bap- 
tize KvA  baptism,  have  hidden  themeaning  from  the  multiiudc. 
But  the  evidences  from  these  passages  cannot  be  hid — it  is  ob- 
vious to  the  most  unlearned,  and  the  words,  'Buried  with 
Christ  by  baptism'  may  continue  to  make,  as  a  I'edobaptist 
writer  says  they  have  heretofore  made,  more  Biiptist.s  than  any 
other  passage  in  the  Bible.  Tho  Spirit  of  God,  through  this 
commentary  of  the  great  Apostle,  enables  all  men  to  judge  for 
themselves  in  this  matter." 

"  The  expressions,  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  and  baptized 
into  his  death,  require  explanation.  The  first,  baptized  into 
Jesus  Christ,  means  to  1)3  baptized  into  an  acknowledgment  of 
Jesus  Christ,  with  an  implication  of  subjection,  or  discipleship, 
to  him.  So  to  be  baptized  into  the  death  of  Christ,  is  to  be  bap. 
tized  into  an  acknowledgment  of  his  death,  and  into  an  acknowU 
edgment  of  the  obligations  resulting  from  that  death.''^ 


40 

<'  It  is  contended,  that  the  burying  mentioned  by  the  apos- 
tle, is  not  an  external  one,  but  an  internal,  amoral  burying. 
This  opinion  seems  effectually  opposed  by  the  circumstances, 
that  the  burying  is  performed  h>j  baptism,  an  external  rite.  *  * 
Ifthe  apostle  had  merely  said,  we  are  dead  and  buried  in  respect 
to  sin,  omitting  the  words,  by  baptism,  his  language  would  re- 
quire a  different  interpretation.  But  the  apostle  himself  ex- 
plains  what  he  means  by  burying,  when  he  adds  by  by  baptism.* 

So  Prof.  Chase,  "Buried  with  him  by  baptisvi,  buried  with 
him — how?  By  baptism,  the  apostle  answers.  In  or  by  bap- 
tism, then,  Paul  and  the  Christians  whom  he  addresses  were 
buried.  To  be  crucified  to  the  world,  or  dead  to  sin,  is  the 
character  of  the  christian  :  but  to  be  buried  with  Christ  by 
baptism,  is  the  appointed  emblematical pro/ewzo/i  of  that  charac 
ter*  The  apostle  does  not  teach,  that  bslievers  are  crucijied 
with  Christ,  or  are  dead  with  him,  or  possess  a  mortified  temper, 
by  baptism.  To  have  such  a  state  of  soul,  to  be  dead  in  res- 
pect  to  sin,  is  one  thing  ;  and  to  be  buried  with  Christ  by  bap. 
tis7n.  is  quite  a  different  thing  ;  for  this  is  external,  whereas 
the  other  is  internal.  The  one  is  a  sign  ;  the  other,  the  thing 
signified." 

To  sustain  the  interpretation  given  above,  the  testimonies  of 
several  distinguished  Pedobaptist  writers  may  be  adduced. 

Roscnmu. 'ilcr,  on  the  pasango.  "  Immersion  in  the  water  of  baptism,  and  coming  forth 
out  of  it,  was  a  symbol  of  a  person's  renouncing  his  former  life,  and,  on  the  contrary,  be- 
ginning a  new  one.  The  learned  liave  rightly  reminded  us,  that  on  account  of  this  em- 
blematical meaning  of  baptism,  the  rite  of  immersiom  otGHT  to  Have  been  retained  i^ 
THE  Christian  church." 

Martin  l.uther  after  speaUing  of  baptism  as  a  symbol  of  death  and  resurrection,  says: 
"On  this  actjount,  I  could  wish,  that  such  as  are  to  be  baptized,  should  be  completei-Y 
IMMERSED  INTO  WATER,  according  to  the  meaning  of  the  word,  and  the  signification  of  tha 
ordinance;  as  also  without  doubt  it  was  instituted  by  Christ." 

Dr.  Knapp,  an  eminent  and  pious  German  divine,  whose  works  are  recomraendtd  by 
Dr.  Woods,  speaking  of  the  passage  in  question,  thus  expresses  the  aj-.ostle's  idea  :  "  Ws 
ARE  LIKE  Christ  buried  as  dead  persons,  by  baptism,  and  should  arise,  like  him,  to 
a  new  life."  He  adda,  "  The  image  is  taken  here  from  baptized  persons,  as  they  wera 
IMMEROED  (buried),  and  as  they  EM»RGED(rose  again). 

Dr.  Eloomfield,  "  one  of  the  most  profound  living  biblical  scholars  of  Great  Britain,  and 
highly  commended  by  Prof  Stuart  as  a  learned  andjudicious  critic,  gives  this  paraphrase 
oftho  wordo,  "buried  with  him  by  baptism :"  "We  Have  been  thus  buried  in  the 
Waters  of  baptism."  "He  adda,  "There  is  a  plain  allusion  to  the  ancient  cus- 
tom OF  baptism  by  immersion." 

Prof.  Lange.  "As  Christ  died,  so  we  die  (to  sin)  with  him  in  baptism.  Thebodj'is,  as 
it  were,  buried  under  water,  is  dead  with  Christ ;  the  plunging  under  water  represents 
death,  and  rising  out  of  it  the  resurrection  to  a  new  life.  A  more  striking  symbol  could  not 
be  chosou." 

The  Author  of  the  Free  Inquiry  on  baptism.  "  This  baptism  of  John  and  that  of  the 
apostles  were  performed  in  precisely  the  same  way,"  i.  e.  the  candidate  was  com- 
pletely immersed  under  water.  Speaking  of  Rom.  6:  4,  and  Gal.  3:  27,  he  says; 
What  becomes  of  all  these  beautiful  images,  when,  as  at  the  present  day,  baptism  is  ad- 
ministered by  pouring  or  sprinkling  1" 

Bloomfield  in  his  Critical  Digest  on  the  passage,  says  ;  "There  is  here  plainly  a  refer- 
ence to  the  ancient  mode  of  baptism  by  immersion  ;  and  I  agree  with  Koopper  and  Ros- 
enmuellkr   that  therk  is  reason  to  regret  it  should   have  been  abandoned  in 

*  Ripley's  Examination  of  Stuart. 


41 

most  CbrUtianchurclics,  eeiecially  asit  bas  so  evidently  a  reference  to  the  nij-tticsentc  of 
laptisin." 

Dr.  Doddridge  (in  whose  words  we  have  Mri  John  Wesley  and  Mr.  George  Whitfield, 
the  former  in  a  Note,  and  tlic  latter  in  a  sermon,  on  this  ver^e)  "  Buried  with  hira  in  bap- 
tism." "It  seems  the  part  of  candor  to  confess,  that  here  is  aa  allusion  to  the  maunuer  of 
baptizing  by  immersion." 

Dr.  Wall  (the  learned  author  of  that  famous  work,  "  the  HiKlory  of  Infant  Baptism,"  for 
which  he  recei^'ed  the  thanks  of  the  whole  clergy  in  convocation,)  after  refering  to  several 
passages  of  tcrpture  which  he  deemed  "  undeniable  proofs,  t'lat  the  baptized  person 
went  ordinaril}' into  the  water,  and  sometimes  the  Baptist  too,  says:  We  should  not  know 
from  these  accounts  whether  the  whole  body  of  the  baptized  wasput  under  water,  bead  and 
all,  were  it  not  for  two  later  proofs,  which  seem  to  me  to  pot  it  ol't  ofqdestion.  One,  That 
St.  Paul  does  twice,  in  an  allusive  way  of  speaking,  call  baptism  a  BCRiAt..  The  other, 
"The  castomof  the  christians  in  the  near  succeeding  times,  which  being  more  largely  and 
particniarly  delivered  in  books,  is  known  to  have  been  generally,  or  ordinarily,  a  total 

IMMERSION." 

Similar  testimonies  to  tliese  are  given  by  Archbishop  Tillotson.  Archbishop  Seeker, 
Dr.  Sam.  Clarke,  Dr.  Wells,  Assembly  of  Divines,  Dr.  Mackuight,  Dr.  Towercon,  Meander, 
Tholuck,  and  a  multitude  of  others. 

As  Dr.  Wall  has  alluded  to  the  practice  of  the  primitive 
christians,  we  will  just  give  the  testimony  of  a  few  of  the 
Fathers,  who  evidently  refer  to  this  passage,  and  more  may  be 
found  under  the  4th  head,  i.  e.  the  practice  of  the  ancient 
church. 

Justin  Martyr  says  :  "We  represent  our  Lord's  suSierings  and  reEurreclion  by  baptism 

IN    A    POOL." 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  "  You  were  led  toabath,  as  Christ  was  conveyed  to  the  sepul- 
chre, and  were  thrice  immersed,  to  siguify  Christ's  three  day's  burial." 

Theodoret,  on  this  pass'»-.'c,  "  Baptism  is  a  type  of  our  Lord's  death  ;"  acd  in  Ileb.  6  : 
2,  "  In  holy  baptisi<  we  rccci»n  the  type  of  the  resurrection." 

Theophylact  say  "  Laiitisin  tjiiifies  by  immersion  the  death,  by  emersion  the  resur- 
itetiou  of  Christ." 

'Jo!it  iJajnascene;  "Baptism  rejiroEents  the  (deloi)  death  of  our  Lof d." — " it  is  a  type 
(tvk-.i.)  of  MIS  death  ;" — "  the  first  baptism  was  the  flood  '." — "  the  old  man  was  entirely 
buriea  m  watar." 

Council  of  Toledo,  '•  The  immersion  in  water  (in  aquis  mcrsio)  is,  as  it  were,  the  des- 
cent to  Hades,  and  the  emersion  from  the  water,  the  resurtection." 

Photius,  quoted  by  Oecumenicus  or  Rom.  6:  4,  and  Athanasius,  give  the  same  e.xplana- 
tion.  So  also  the  bishops,  Gelasius,  Gregory  and  Telagius,  in  there  rituuls;"  These  exam- 
ples might  be  multiplied  to  a  great  e.Ytent. 

"We  cannot  forbear  noticing  here  a  novel  interpretation  of 
Rom.  6  :  4,  (buried  with  him  in  baptism,)  which  is  beginning 
to  gain  currency  among  certain  American  writers.  It  is  grave- 
ly argued,  that  Paul,  in  that  passage,  had  no  allusion  to  the 
mode  of  baptism^  See  Stuart  on  the  passage,  and  those  who 
have  copyed  from  him.  This  is  a  discovery.  The  quotations 
from  the  early  Fathers^  and  from  the  later  German  critics" — 
preceding,  as  well  those  succeeding,  "  will  show,  that  none  of 
them  were  ever  blessed  with  this  extraordinary  illuminatior. 
It  were  easy  to  prove,  that  the  biblical  scholars  of  all  nations, 
during  the  whole  period  intervening  between  the  Christian 
Fathers  and  the  modern  German  school,  have  all  of  them  grop. 
ed  their  way  in  equal  darkness.  Here,  then,  we  have  the  re* 
m  irkable  fact,  that  while  two,  or  three  American  controversial, 
istsj' — in  itself  a  suspicious  circumstance, — invent  a  new  inter. 


42 

prctation  for  a  passage,  that  overthrows  al!  llieir  far-fetched 
arj:iiments  in  favor  of  aspersion  in  baptism,  the  whole  host  of 
Jearned  critics,  from  Justin  Martyr  down  to  Winer,  Neander, 
Olshausen  and  Tlioluck,  stand  arra3'cd  againr-it  them  in  an  un- 
broken  phalanx.  Will  it  be  believed,  that  this  portion  of  a 
book,  Vfritten  for  the  common  people  (who,  by  the  way,  have 
never  failed  of  appreh'uuling  the  true  sense  of  this  passage,) 
lias  been  sul)iGCted  to  all  classes  of  men  in  different  ages  of  the 
world,  in  ditferent  nations,  and  in  all  cultivated  languages  for 
eighteen  centuries,  and  that  no  man  was  ever  found  to  open 
the  seal  and  dissect  afgure,  until  our  enlightened  opponents 
succeeded?  We  must  not  omit,  in  this  connection,  to  mention 
a  circumstance,  which  s<!ts  the  views  of  the  early  cliurch,  in 
regard  to  the  point  now  under  discussion,  in  a  clear  light.  We 
sllude  to  the  iact,  that  the  great  bodj^  of  the  ancient  church 
reserved,  except  in  cases  of  peril,  all  the  baptisms  of  the  year, 
until  the  festival  of  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  If 
there  were  other  times  of  baptism,  they  were  regarded  as  less 
solemn  and  appropriate,  than  the  time  of  the  Passover  or  Easter. 
Now  the  whole  ground  of  this  universal  practice  was  that  Paul, 
in  their  view,  declared  baptism  to  be  an  emblem  of  death  and 
the  resurrection.  Here  the  act  speaks  louder  than  words. 
Though  there  is  no  controversy  among  those  wjio  prof jss  to  be 
acquainted  with  the  subject,  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  adduce  a 
few  pa.ssages  by  way  of  proof."* 

Tertullian,  Do  Rap.  19,  says  :  "This  is  the  more  approiiriatc  day,  as  bfiinjj  the  tlaj-  of 
our  Lord's  suft'erings,  into  wliich  we  are  l>aptized."  This  seutiincnt  prevailed  to  such  an 
extreme,  tliat  Gregorj',  Nazianzen,  Basil  and  Chrysostom,  were  obli^'ed,  as  wise  men,  to 
labor  to  show,  that  any  other  time,  tliougli  less  interesting,  was  nevertheless  perfectly 
proper  for  baptism.  Those  of  whom  Greffory  speaks  in  his  -lOth  Orat.,  preferred  in  bap- 
tism "  to  rise  with  Christ  on  the  resurrection  day."  fiasil,  De  Spiritu  Sancto,  27, 
sa3's  ;  The  whole  period  of  fifty  days  (from  the  Passover  or  Easter,  to  Pentecost)  is  a  me- 
morial of  our  resurrection."  Thus,  even  when  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  fixed  upon  for 
b  ptism,  as  itsome  tim  s  was,  though  loss  frequently,  it  wasat]the  same  time  a  reminiscence 
of  the  two  scenes  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  of  the  effusion  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Chysostom,  1  Horn,  on  Acts,  while  he  admits,  that  the  '  grace  itself  of  baptism  is  the  same 
on  Pentecost,  gives  the  preference  to  JOaster  or  the  passover,  because  the  mind  is  then 
impressed  with  "loft:er  esniimnets."  Socrates,"),  2'2,  speaUs  of  those  who  baptize 
only  on  the  day  of  the  Passover.  Siricius,  bishoj)  of  Rome,  says  :  "  this  ordinance  is  ob- 
served with  ALT,  the  rmiucHES  at  the  Paschal  festival  and  Pentecost."  Leo  the  Great 
censures  certain  individuals  'for  the  irrational  innovation  of  baptizing-  at  any  other  time 
THAN  that  of  the  Passover.'  The  council  of  Auxerrein,  578,  prohibited  baptism  'at  any 
other  time  than  Easter.'  The  council  of  Matiscon  did  the  same  in  583.  .1.  A.  Schmid,  in 
his  Hist.  Fest.,  p.  121,  says ;  'In  the  Latin  church,  the  ninth  hour,  i.  c.  So'clock  P.  M., 
this  festival  was  designated  for  baptism,  because  it  was  at  that  hourthat  Christ  died,  whose) 
death  was  imitated  in  baptism."  Augusti,  2,  7,  saj's  ;  'From  the  earliest  times,  this  day 
was  selected  for  baptism,  as  special  importance  was  attached  to  baptism  into  the  death  of 
Christ." 

We  have  adduced  these   testimonies,  from  history,  because 
^ve  deem  them    decisive,  not  a  note  of  remonstrance  in  all  the 

f  *  The  Christian  Review,  edited  by  Prof.  Sears,  of  Newton,  Mast<.,  published  by  Gould) 
Kendal,  and  Lincoln,  Boston. 


43 

Fathers,  have  we  ever  seen  against  them.  That  the  ancient 
fathers  understood  the  design  of  baptism  to  be  a  symbolical 
representation  of  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  we 
think  must  be  manifest  from  their  testimonies.  Whenever 
they  speak  of  baptism,  they,  almost  always  point  to  the  death, 
burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ. 

III.  The  places  selected  for  the  administration  of  the 

ORDINANCE,  AND  THE  CIRCUMSTANCES  CONNECTED  WITH  ITS 
I'ERFORMANCE,  WHERE  TIIEY  ARE  DESCRIBED,  FURNISHES 
ANOTHER   ARGUMENT    IN    FAVOR    OF    IMMERSION. 

"  John  the  Baptist  did  baptize  in  the  wilderness,  *  *  * 
and  there  went  out  unto  him  all  the  land  of  Judea,  *  *  * 
and  Avere  all  baptized  of  him  in  the  river  Jordan."*  Here  it  is 
explicitly  stated,  that  those  who  were  baptized  of  him,  were 
baptized  in  the  river  Jordan.  If  the  idea  advanced  by  some, 
that  the  preposition  (en)  in  may  mean  at,  yet  Avhy  should  he 
resort  to  a  river  at  ail  "excepting  that  immersion  was  practi- 
sed."! "IkitProf.  Robinson  a  Pedobaptist,  and  the  learned  au- 
thor of  the  Lexicon  of  the  New  Testament,  translates  the 
Greek  particle  (en)  fn  or  into,  in  all  the  instances  in  which 
John's  baptism  is  spoken  of.  Jesus  was  baptized  by  John  i?! 
(eis)  Jordan ;  or,  as  Prof.  Robinson  translates, "  into  the  river 
Jordan.^X 

Dr.  Campbell  in  liis  notes  on  Matliew3:  11,  makes  the  following  statement :  "In  water- 
in  the  Holy  Spirit,  (en  udati — ca  agio  pncuniati.)  English  translation,  with  water — with 
the  Holy  Ghost.  Vulgato,  [that  is  l^atin  translation,]  in  aqua — in  Spiritu  Sancto.  Thus, 
also,  the  Syrac  and  other  ancient  versions.  1  am  sorry  to  observe  that  the  Popish  transla- 
tors from  the  vulgate,  have  shown  greater  veneration  for  the  «tyle  of  that  version,  than  the 
generality  of  the  Protestant  translators  have  shown  for  that  of  the  original.  For  in  this, 
the  Latin  is  not  more  explicit  than  the  Greek.  Yet  so  inconsistent  are  the  interpreters 
last  mentioned,  that,  cone  of  them  have  scrupled  to  render  (en  to  Jordaue,)  in  the  sixth 
verse,  in  Jordan  ;  though  ,  nothing  can  be  plainer,  than  that,  if  there  be  any  incongruity  iu 
the  expression  in  water  :  this,  in  Jordan,  must  be  equally  incongruous."  Hut  they  have 
seen  that  the  preposition,  in,  could  not  be  avoided  "without  adopting  a  circumlocution, 
and  saying,  with  the  water  of  Jordan,  which  would  have  made  their  deviation  from  the  text 
too  glaring." 

Mr.  Hervy,  when  contending  that  en,  signifies  in  ;  adds,  I  can  prove  it  to  ha'  e  been  in 
peaceable  possession  of  this  signification  two  thousand  years.  "  Every  one  knows,"  he  ob- 
serves in  another  place,  "  that  with,  is  not  the  native,  obvious,  and  literal  meaning;  but  rather 
a  meaning  swayed,  influenced,  moulded  by  the  preceding  or  following  word." — Letters  to 
Mr.  Wesley. 

"  In  four  of  the  first  versions  of  the  Bible  into  English,  we  find  these  words  rendered 
literally  '  in  water  ;'   but  the  expression  not  suiting  the  prevailing  custom,  it  was  afterward 

*  Dr.  Shaw  says,  "before  it  enters  the  Dead  Sea,  its  ordinary  breadth  is  about  thirty 
yards,  but  it  is  exceedingly  deep,  even  to  the  brink  of  its  inner  bank."  It  was  so  deep  that 
a  miracle  was  performed  to  make  a  passage  for  Israel,  (Josh,  iii  :  9,  17,)  and  for  Elijah, 
(2  Kings  vi :  5).  It  was  in  this  deep  rjver,  that  a  young  man  lost  his  axe,  (2  Kings  vi :  1,  5,). 
In  this  river  Naanian  dipped  (baptized)  himself  seven  times  (2  Kings  v  :  14,).  Reader, 
surely  this  was  deep  enough  for  baptizing. 

t  Prof  Stuart. 

%  Vide  Lc.\.  on  the  word  Baptize,  2  (a).    See  Bloomficld,  not«  upon  the  passage. 


44 

rSndered  '  with  wator.'     It  is  in,-^iii  the  Vulgate,  Syriac,  Arabic  and  Ethiopic',  and  several 
more  modern  versious. 

Tjndal,  one  of  the  first  four  translators,  says  ;  "I  baptize  you  in  water,  in  token  of  re- 
pentance." 

"  And  John  waa  also  baptizing  in  Enon,  near  fSiliiV^,  hecause 
there  was  much  watei- there  :  and  they  came  and  were  baptized." 
(John  3  ;  23.)  Now  the  rea.son  is  expressly  stated,  why  he  se. 
selected  this  place,  because  the  naich  icatcr  aftbrded  facility  for 
the  performance  of  the  rito.  This  passage  is  plain  and  obvi- 
ous, and,  though  it  might  be  susceptible  of  the  translation,  Be- 
2a  and  others  contend  for,  i.  e.  {many  streams  or  rivulets.)  Still 
it  would  afford  conveniences  for  immersion.  The  Holy  Spirit 
does  not  say  John  made  choice  of  this  spot,  to  accommodate 
the  people  with  water  to  use, — nor  their  beasts  to  drink, — but 
on  account  of  its  convenience  for  baptizing.  But  Prof.  Rip- 
ley has  shown,  with  a  clearness,  force  and  precision  which  ought 
ever  to  settle  the  question,  that  our  translation  is  correct,  and 
not  to  bo  discarded.*  "  See  Jer.  41  :  12,  compared  2  Samuel 
2  :  12,  13, 14.  On  which  read  Robinson's  Calmet,  under  tho 
word  GiBF.ON.  Also  consult  Rev.  1  :  5,  19  :  6,  where  the 
same  words  are  ured  to  designate  the  ocean.'' 

The  case  of  the  Ethiopean  Eunuch  next  claims  our  atten- 
tion. "  As  they  went  on  their  way,  they  came  unto  certain 
water,  *  *  and  they  went  down  both  into  the  water,  both 
Philip  and  the  Eunuch  ;  and  he  baptized  him.  And  when  they 
were  come  up  out  of  the  water,  the  spirit  of  the  Lord  caught 
away  Philip."  (Acts  8  :  36 — 39.)  Now  for  what  purpose 
did  Philip  and  the  Eunuch  ifo  doicn  both  into  the  water,  if  it  wetQ 
not  that  he  might  immerse  him.  Now  the  impression,  which 
would  naturally  rest  upon  the  mind,  of  a  plain  man,  when 
reading  this  account,  must  evidently  be  the  true  one.  But  it  is 
sometimes  said  that  the  preposition  (eis)  here  is  often  rendered 
to.  But  what  did  tliey  go  down  to  the  water  for  if  not  for 
immersion.     Hear 

Dr.  Doddrige. — "  It  would  hn  very  unnatural  to  suppose,  that  tliey  went  down  to  the 
water,  merely  that  Philip  might  take  up  a  little  water  in  his  hand  to  pour  on  the  Eunuchj 
A  person  of  his  dignity  had,  nodouht,  many  vessels  in  his  baggage,  [by  which  water  might 
be  brought  into  his  chariot,]  oa  such  a  journey,  through  a  desert  country  ;  a  precaution 
absolutely  necessary  for  travelling  in  those  parts,  and  never  omitted  by  them." — See  Dv, 
Shaw's  Travels. 

The  criticism  on  tho  Greek  preposition,  in  this  place,  is  far 
from  just  "j"  "  Tho  verb  here  translated  went  down,  when  follow- 
ed by  the  preposition  used  in  this  passage,  includes  almost  uni- 

*  So  Olshansen,  Do  Wette,  Kuinoel,  Grotius,  Bloomfield,  Doddridge,  and  others. 
_  t  Consult  Prof.  Ripley's  examination  of  Stuart,  Boston,  1833.    Also,  Robinson's  Lexicon, 
Katabainon,  ;a)  Anubainon  (a).    Liltewise  Dodridge,  on  the  passage. 


45 

formly,  in  the  New  Testament,  the  idea  of  entrance  into  the 
place  mentioned,  e.  g.  "Jesus  went  down  fo  Capernaum."  A- 
gain  it  is  said,  "  Jacob  went  down  to  Egypt."  Is  it  ncit  clearly 
implied  here, , that  Jesus  went  im/o  Capernaum?  Jacob,  into 
Egypt  and  not  merely  to  the  borders  of  it  ?  So  in  common  par- 
lance, "  we  say  of  a  man,  he  has  gone  to  New  York, — -meaning 
he  has  gone  into  the  city  to  buy  goods." 

IV.  The  ruACTiCE  of  the  karly  Ciieistiaxs,  asv  of  the 
Christian  world  for  manv  centuries,  shows  that  thf.v 
undei'stood  baptism  to  mean  immersion. 

It  may  not  bo  wholly  inapposite  to  state  here,  that  the  ar* 
gument  from  church  history,  is  not  the  one  on  which  we  place 
our  chief  dependence.  We  claim  to  belong  to  a  denomination 
that  regards  the  Hible  as  our  only  and  sufficient  rule  offailh 
and  practice  :  and  to  our  mind,  the  Bible  is  perfectly  clear  on 
this  subject.  We  have  also  a  satisfactory  comment,  of  what 
our  Savior  taught  on  this  subject,  in  the  practice  of  the  early 
Christians,  who,  in  all  probability,  regulated  their  practice  by 
his  instructions,  and  the  apostle's  example. 

The  question  naturally  arises  here,  how  did  the  early  Chris' 
tians  understand  the  word  and  represent  it  in  their  practices  ? 
Now,  "he  that  hath  ears  to  hear,  let  him  hear." 

Barnabas,  the  companion  of  Paul,  (Acts  13:  2,)  says,  in  liis  Epistle,  speaking  of 
baptism,  "  We  dkscend  into  the  watkk,  and  comp  oct  of  it." 

In  tlie  Pastor  of  Hermas,  saluted  by  Paul,  (Rom.  10;  11,)  it  is  stated:  "  Men  des.- 
ccuded  into  the  water,  bound  to  deatli ;  but  ascended  out  of  it,  sealed  to  life." 

Justin  Martyr,  In  giving  the  pagans  a  general  account  of  Christian  doctrines,  and  prac- 
tices, tays:  *'  Tliose  who  believe,  are  )ed  to  some  place  where  there  is  water,  an^ 
there  bathe  in  ihe  water."  In  nnother  ]>l.ice,  he  say s :  "  Wc  represent  our  Lord's  suf. 
t.:r'ngsand  resurrection,  by  baptism  in  a  i-ooi.." 

"  There  can  be  no  doubt  what  is  meant  l)y  bathing  in  a  pool,  or  swimming-place,  iij 
such  a  manner  as  to  represent  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  Thi.3  Is  not  the 
description  of  any  one  case  of  baptisin,  but  a  universal  description." 

TertuUian. — "  We  are  immersed  in  water," — "  let  down  into  the  water  and 
DIPPED."  "  Peter  IMMERSED  in  the  tiber  "  '' It  is  one  tiling  to  be  SPRINKLED,  (as' 
pergi,)  by  tiie  violence  of  the  waves  in  a  boat,  and  another  to  be  dipped,  (lingui,)  ii( 
a  religious  ordinanee.  It  is  indifferent  whether  one  is  baptized  in  the  sea  or  iu  a  pool, 
i;i  a  river  or  a  fountain,  in  a  lake  or  the  bed  of  a  river." 

Apostolical  Constitutions. — '■  Baptism  relates  to  the  death  of  Christ :  the  water  an- 
swers to  the  grave;  llie  im  mersion  represents  our  dying  with  liun:  the  Emersion, 
our  rising  witli  him." 

Cyril  o'"  Jerusalem. — "  He  who  is  immersed  in  water  and  baptized,  is  surcoundeJ 
with  water  oij  all  s  des," 

Basil  the  Great. — ''  The  bodies  of  those  that  are  baptized,  are,  as  it  were,  buried 
IN  water." 

Grysostom. — ""We,  as  in  a  sepulchre,  "immersing  our  heads  in  water,  the  old  man  is" 
buried,  and  sinking  down,  the  whole  is  concealed  at  once."  "  He  speaks  of  baptism  in 
innumerable  instances  in  13  folio  volumes,  but  never  alludes  to  sprinkling." 

Leo,  bishop  of  Rome. — "  True  inmjersion  lepresents  the  three  day's  burial  of  Christ." 

Jerome. — "  Three  times  we  are  immerged,"  &c. 

Augustine — "  Rightly  are  ye  immeroed  three  times,  who  have  received  bffptisin in 
Ihe  name  of  Christ." 

These  are  but  a  few  of  the  multitude  of  testimonies  that 
might  be  quoted,  had  we  space, 


46 

"  To  these  passages  from  the  Christian  Fathers,  we  subjoin 
the  testimony  of  some  of  the  modern  German  critics.  We  be- 
speak  particular  attention  to  these,  not  only,  on  account  of 
their  impartiality,  as  they  have  no  interest  in  the  controversy, 
but,  on  account  of  their  being  the  very  highest  authority  in  lan- 
guage and  antiquities." 

Tlioluck,  on  Romans  6 :  4. — "  In  order  to  understand  the  figuratire  use  of  baptism, 
we  must  bear  in  mind  the  well  known  fact,  that  the  candidate,  in  the  primitive 
church,  WAS  immersed  in  water,  and  raised  out  of  it  aoain."  In  his  Manuscript 
Lecture  on  Col.  2;  12,  he  saysi :  "  Tlie  candidate  was  immersed,  and  not  sprinkled,  as 
with  us." 

Winer. — "  In  the  apostolical  age,  baptism  was  by  immersion,  as  its  symbolical  ex- 
planation shows." 

Bretsclineider. — "  The  apostolical  church  baotized  only  by  iramersion." 

"  Schleusner,  Wahl,  and  Bretschneider,  the  three  great  New  Testament  lexicogra- 
phers of  Germany,  limit  baptism,  as  a  sacred  ordinance  to  immersion." 

Hahn. — "According  to  apustolical  instrdction  and  example,  baptism  was  per- 
formed BY  IMMERSING  THE  WHOLE  MAN." 

Prof.  Lange. — '•  Baptism  in  the  apostolical  age,  was  a  proper  baptism,  the  immersio\ 

OF  THE  WHOLE  BODY  IN  WATER.      PLUNGING  UNDER  WATER    represents    death,  and  RISING 

OCT  OF  IT,  the  resurrection  to  a  new  life." 

Fritsch. — "  With  infant  baptism,  still  another  change  in  the  outward  form  of  bap- 
tism was  Introduced,  that  of  sprinkling  with  water,  instead  of  the  former  prac- 
tice OF  immersion." 

With  these  agree  the  testimonies  of  Olshanson,  Pengel,  Usteri,  Rheinwolds;  Schioz, 
and  Starck. 

I  will  here  add  the  testimonies  of  some  of  the  best  historians. 

Tfeander,  says  :  "  Baptism  was  originally  by  immersion  ;  to  this  form  various  com- 
parisons of  the  apostle  Paul  allude.'- 

Guericke. — "Baptism  was  originally  administered  by  immersion." — ^Vaddington 
calls  "  immersion,  the  oldest  form  of  baptism."  Mosheim,  Dupin,  Milner,  Greg- 
ory, Venema,  and  indeed  all  the  best  liislorians  affirm  that  the  practice  of  tlic  primitive 
churches  waa  immersion, 

? 

"After  these  testimonies,  you  will  be  prepared  to  appreciate 
the  concession  of  Prof.  Stuart,  who,  quoting  Augusti,  says : 
"'It  is  a  thing  made  out,"  viz:  theancient  practice  of  immersion. 
"Iknow,"  continues  the  Prof.,  "of  no  one  usage  which  seems  to 
be  more  clearly,  and  certainly  made  out.  I  cannot  see  how  it 
is  possible  for  any  candid  man  who  examines  this  subject,  to 
to  deny  this."  He  finally  comes  to  this  conclusion,  "  that 
from  the  earliest  ages  of  which  we  have  any  account,  subse- 
quent to  the  apostolic  age,  and  downward  for  several  centuries, 
the  churches  generally  practised  baptism  by  immersion,  per- 
haps by  immersion  of  the  whole  person ;  and,  that  the  only  ex- 
ceptions to  this  mode  which  were  usually  allowed,  were  in  cases 
of  immediate  and  imminent  danger,  where  immersion  could  not 
be  practised." 

It  is  a  fact,  notorious  in  history,  that  the  whole  Christian 
church  for  the  space  of  1300  years,  practised  immersion,  except 
in  cases  of  sickness.  This  can  be  established  by  the  testimo- 
nies of  Pedobaptists.  Hear  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Whitby,  in 
bis  exposition  of  Romans. 


t}T.  Wliitby,  (author  ofa  Commentary,  and  more  tlian  forty  other  learned  works,)  sayt  ^ 
"  It  being  so  expressly  declared  here,  and  Colos.  2j  13,  that  we  are  buried  with  Christ, 
IN  BAPTISM,  by  being  buried  under  water,  and  the  argument  to  oblige  us  to  a  conformity 
to  bis  death,  by  dying  to  sin,  being  taken  hence;  and  this  immersion  being  religious- 
ly observed  BY  ALL  Christians  fur  THIRTEEN,  CliNTURIES,  and  approved  t)y 
our  church,  and  the  change  of  it  into  sprinkling,  even  without  any  allowance  from  the 
author  of  this  institution,  or  any  license  from  any  council  of  the  church,  being  that 
which  the  Romanist  stiil  urgcth  to  justify  the  refusal  of  the  cup  to  tlie  laity;  it  were  ta 
be  wished  that  this  custom  inii'ht  be  again  of  general  use,  and  aspersion  only  permitted 
as  of  old ,  in  cases  of  Clinici,  or  in  present  danger  of  death." 

Bossuet. — "  We  are  able  to  make  it  appear,  by  acts  of  councils,  and  by  the  ancient 
rituals,  that,  for  THIRTEEN  HUNDRED  YEARS,  baptism  was  thus  [by  imjnersi»3nj 
udmiuistcred  throughout  the  whole  church,  as  far  as  possible." 

Stackhouse. — "Several  authors  have  shoivn  that  we  re;id  no  where  in  Scripture  of  any 
one's  being  baptised,  but  by  immersion,  and  from  the  acts  of  councils  and  ancient  rituals 
have  proved,  that  this  immcrsiou  continued  (as  much  as  possible)  to  be  used  for  TUII&  • 
TEEN  HUNDRED  YEARS  after  Christ." 

Breuucr,  a  Roman  Catholic  writer,  states,  "  that  THIRTEEN  HUNDRED  YEARS 
wasbaptisni  generally  and  ordinarily  performed  by  the  inimersioapf  a  niau  underwater, 
and  onlyou  e.Uraordinary  occasions  was  sprinkling  or  utfuslou  permitted.  These  latter! 
uiethods  are  called  in  question,  and  even  prohibited. — Stuart,  p.  3<>1. 

Encyclopedia  Americana,  speaking  of  Baptism,  sa3's  :  "  that  ik  is  dipping,  immersios 
from  the  Greek  baptizo." 

Again,  "  In  the  time  of  the  apostles,  the  form  of  baptisn^  was  very  simple.  The  per- 
son to  be  baptized  was  dipped  in  a  river  or  vessel,  with  the  words  which  Christ  ^iad^ 
ordorcxl,  and,  to  express  nrore  fully  his  change  of  character,  gejieraHy  adopted  a  new 
name.  The  immersion  of  the  whole  body  was  omitted  only  in  the  case  of  the  sick,  whu( 
could  not  leave  their  beds.  In  this  case  sprinkling  was  substituted,  which  was  called 
CLiNEK  BAPriSiM,  The  Greek  church  as  well  as  the  schismatics  in  the  East  retained  tha 
custom  of  immersing  the  whole  body;  but  the  Western  church  adopted  in  the  13th  cen- 
tury tlie  mode  of  baptism  by  sprinkling  which  has  been  continued  by  the  Protestants,  tha 
Baptists  (q.  V.)  only  excepted." 

Edinburgh  Encyclopedia,  edited  by  Sir  David  Brewster,  allowed  to  be  one  of  the  best 
scholars  of  the  age,  states  :  "  that  the  word  baptizo  means  to  immerse,  or  Paul  would 
never  have  said  that  we  are  buried  with  Christ  by  baptism  and  that  iniinersiuji  was  prac- 
tised by  all  christians  until  the  beginning  of  the  fourteenth  century.  That  the  Council  of 
Ravanna,  held  in  1311  first  sanctioned  sprinkling;  but  corrupt  as  was  the  church  of 
Rome,  whose  couucilthLs  was,  it  did  not  enjoin  sprinkling,  but  merely  said  that  it  was 
admissable." 

Encyclopedia  Ecclesiastica.— r(This  splendid  work  published,  A.  D.  1835,  under  tbo 
patronage  of  the  highest  authorities  in  tlie  British  nation,  both  in  church  and  state,  after 
stating  the  reasons  now  urged  in  defence  of  sprinkling,  proceeds,)  "  Whatever  weight, 
however,  may  be  in  these  reasons  as  a  defence  for  the  present  practice  of  sprinkling,  iT  is 
evident  that,  during  the  first  ages  of  the  church,  and  for  many  centuries  afterwards,  the 
practice  of  immersion  prevailed;  and  which  seems  indeed  never  to  be  departed  from, 
except  whore  it  was  administered  tu  a  person  at  the  point  of  death,  or  upon  a  bed  of 
sickness, — which  w^s  considered  indeed  as  not  giving  the  party  the  full  privileges  of  bap- 
tism,— or  when  there  was  not  a  sufficient  supply  of  water.  Except  in  the  above  cases, 
the  custoni  was  to  dip  or  [mmerse  the  whole  body."  Hence  St.  Barnabas,  says  :  "  We  gQ| 
down  into  the  water,"  &c.  &c. — -■Irticle  Baptism. 

I'rof.  Stuart,  states  on  the  autiiorityof  John  Ploycr,*  "that  the  English  church  prac- 
tised imineision  down  to  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century;  after  which  a 
change  to  the  method  of  spriukling  tcmk  place.  But  thougli,  sprinkling  is  now  the  univer- 
sal practice  with  them,  their  liturgy  has  always  required  immersion  except  in  cuaesoC 
weakness." 

It  is  universally  admitted,  by  all  intelligent  and  candid  Per 
dobaptists,  that  the  Oriential  Greek  Church,  which  comprises  a 
large  portion  of  Christendom,  have  always  practised  the  rite 
of  immersion.  Says  Prof.  Stuart,  "  The  mode  of  baptism  by 
immersion,  the  Oriential  church  has  always  continued  to  pre- 
serve, even  down  to  the  present  time.  The  members  of  thia 
church  are  accustomed  to  call  (he  members  of  the  westeri| 

*  Jn  a  yrorTs.  of  John  Floyer  on  Cold  Bathing,  p.  50f 


48 

churches,  sprinhled  christians,  hy  way  of  ridicule  and  contempt. 
They  mainttun  that  baptlzo  can  mean  nothing  but  iinmcrfre ; 
and  that  baptism  hy  sprinkling  is  as  great  a  solecism  as  immer- 
sion hy  sprinkling ;  and  they  cUdm  to  themselves  the  honor  of 
having  preserved  the  ancient  sacred  rite  of  the  church  free 
from  change  and  from  corruption,  which  would  destroy  its  sig- 
nificancy."  The  reader  will  here  recollect  that  the  I^ew 
Testament  was  written  in  Greek,  and  that  the  Greeks  them- 
selves declare  that  Baptizo  means  to  immerse  and  nothing  else, 
and  that  to  talk  of  'baptism  by  sprinkling.'  is  as  inconsistent 
as  to  talk  of  '  immersion  by  sprinkling.'  Tiiis  testimony  is 
entitled  to  the  greatest  credit.*  And  however  great  a  change 
the  Greek  language  may  have  undergone  with  respect  to  the 
meaning  of  many'words,  we  have  seen  by  a  reference  to  classic 
usage  and  the  practice  of  the  ancient  church,  that  baptizo 
(which  is  still  vernacular  to  the  modern  Greeks,)  has  under- 
gone no  change.  This  testimony  of  the  Greeks  appears  to  me 
decisive,  and  l  do  not  see  how  any  candid  man  can  r(je(;t  it. 

Finally,  it  must  bo  admitted,  by  the  most  learned  of  all  de- 
nominations,  that  from  the  Apostolic  aire  downwards,  we  have 
an  unbroken  chain  of  evidence  showing  that  immersion,  and 
immersion  only,  was  practised  by  all  christians  f)r  1330  years  ; 
and  in  England  for  1600.  The  o?ily  deviation,  or  exception 
to  this  practice,  was  in  cases  of  extreme  sickness,  when  pouring 
or  affusion  was  practised  as  a  substitute.  This  was  dot;e  on 
the  ground  that  baptism  was  essential  to  salvation  ;-\  and  though 
it  was  not  regarded  as  regular  bii)tism,  yet  it  was  hoped  that 
by  the  indulgence  of  God  it  would  be  accepted,  and  the  saul  of 
the  person,  who  thus  received  baptism,  would  be  saved. — 
This  was  resorted  to  only  from  the  exigency  of  the  ciise,  im- 
mersion  not  being  practicable;  an  I  it  was  never  defended,  in 
the  early  ages  of  the  church,  on  the  ground  of  tradi  ion,  or 
Apostolical  example,  or  of  a  license  from  the  Head  of  the 
Church. 

It  may  be  interesting,  and  perhaps  edifying   to  some  of  our 

*  Mr.  Robinson  the  historian,  very  wisely  remarks  :  "  The  testimony  of  the  Greeks,  is 
an  authority  for  the  meaning  of  baptizo,  infinitely  preferable  to  that  of  European  lexicog- 
raphers ;  so  that  a  man  who  is  obliged  lo  tru.st  liuman  testimony,  and  wlio  baptizes  by  im- 
mersion because  the  Greeks  do,  understands  a  Greek  word  exactly  as  the  Greeks  them- 
•elKes  understand  it ;  and  in  this  case  the  Greeks  are  unexceptional  guides." 

tThe  first  cast^  of  Clinic  Baptism  that  Dr.  Wall  could  discover,  was  the  case  of  No- 
ratian,  about  A.  D.  "iSO.  Euscbius  records:  that  this  man  while  unbaptizel,  fell  into  a 
dangerous  disease,  and  because  he  was  very  like  to  die,  was  baptized  in  the  bed  where 
he  lay,  or  water  poured  all  over  him,  "  if  that  might  be  t(  rmeJ  liaptism." 

The  validity  of  this  baptism  w.iS  aftfrwards  called  in  question,  and  the  church  was 
divided  on  the  subject.  Sprinkling  or  affusion  for  baptism,  has  been  the  cause,  from  first 
to  last,  of  many  contentious  and  divisions  in  the  church. 


49 

friends  here,  as  well  as  yourself,  to  know  how  rantism 
(sprinkling)  is  su;-,ported  in  our  country.  As  a  spccintien,  in 
addition  to  those  made  by  Dr.  Dwight  ;ind  Bnrncs,  we  cite  the 
following  unfounded  assertions,  a  part  of  vviiich  are  taken  from 
Dr.  Miller's  work  on  Baptism,  and  the  residue  are  a  specimen 
of  what  are  contained  in  a  tract,  entitled  "The  Scripture  Di- 
rectory to  Baptism,"  "  by  a  Layman:" 

"  Thus  far,  says  he,  "  we  have,  pursued  our  inquiry :  and  after  a  careful  perusal  and 
exauiinatron  of  every  partof  the  scriptures  which  Iiad  any  kind  of  bearing  upon  tliis 
sul>jr-ct,  we  Imve  never  licen  a!)le  to  tiiij  any  pre-ept,  warrant,  example,  or  practice,  of 
Clirisi  or  his  Apostles,  wliicli  look  any  thing  like,  dipping.  And  froui  all  tlie  l;ooks  we 
have  ever  read  upon  the  suhjert,  on  any  side,  we  have  never  seen  a  quotation  from  any 
of  the  fathers  or  writers  of  any  agk,  that  there  was  ever  any  such  thins  thouglit  of, 
hintel  at,  or  written  al>out,  as  im.mersion,  in  any  place,  or  any  church,  until  ahout  the. 
beginning  of  the  IwelfUi  century  ;  when  a  few  in-'ividuals  l)eg.in  to  think  some  new 
mode  better  than  the  old."  And  again:  "They  [the  Baptists]  never  have,  and  they 
never  can  find  a  single  case  in  the  New  Testament,  nor  in  all  the  wriUngsof  the  Fa- 
thers, nor  in  any  autlientic  history  for  nearly  one  thousand  years  after  them,  where 
it  is  stated  positively,  that  any  churi;h  in  any  place  ever  did  dip  or  immerse  a  single 
person."  For  aught  we  know  to  the  contrary,  this  Layman  may  he  oneof  Ur.  Miller's- 
pupils  ;  f.ir  the  Doctor,  in  his  work  on  Baptism,  published  in  1835,  says:  "  The.'e  is  not 
tl;e  smallest  probabiliiy,  that  he  (John)  ever  baptized  an  individual  in  this  mannerl 
(by  immersion,)"  p.  p;).  " 'I'he  Siicre.l  writirs  have  not  siated  a  single  fact,  or  em- 
ployed a  single  term,  which  evinees  that  they  cither  preferr»d  or  practised  immersion 
in  a  sivGi.E  case;"  p.  09.  "  Immersion  i-"  not  even  tlie  couuuon  inianingof  the  word" 
baptize;  p.  84.  "All  impartial  juilgcs— by  wliicl'  I  mean  all  of  the  moit  profound  and 
mature  Greek  scholars,  who  are  mither  ti)ef)logi,iPs  or  sectarians— agree  in  pronounc- 
ing, that  the  term  in  question  imports  tlie  application  of  water  by  sprinkling."  p.  &5. 

"This  is  the  man,"  says  the  Christian  Review,  "that  speaks 
ex  cathedra  in  his  book,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  using 
such  terms  as  'i  can  assure  you,  my  friends,'  and  brands  with 
ignorance  and  infamy,  those  who  maintaiii  the  contrary." 

My  friend,  will  you  please  contrast  these  atTirmalions  with 
the  testimony  of  the  Pedobaptist  writers  we  have  quoted,  (among 
whom  may  be  named  such  men  as  the  Reformers,  Martin  Lu- 
ther and  John  Calvin,  and  Doctors  Wall,  Whitby,  Campbell, 
Knapp,  McKnight,  BloomfieliJ,  Neander,  and  Prcfesaors  Hahn, 
Person,  Lange,  Tholuck,  (Mshausen,  Stuart,  &c.,  together  with 
all  the  Greek  lexicographers,)  and  then  it  is  presumed,  he  will 
be  enabled  to  judge  on  whicli  side  truth  lies.  It  is  to  be  re- 
gretted, that  Dr.  Miller  and  the  "  I<ayman"  have  not  published 
the  authorities  on  which  they  base  their  novel  assertions  res- 
pecting the  meaning  of  the  term  baptizo,  and  the  practice  of  the 
ancient  church.  Had  they  done  this,  thev  might  have  enlight- 
ened the  most  learned  divines  of  the  United  States,  Europe,  and 
the  wor'd;  and  taught  them  what  they  never  before  learned, 
viz:  that  "immersion  is  not  even  the  common  meaning  of  the 
word"  baptize,  and  "that  there  was  [never]  any  such  thing 
thought  of,  hinted  at,  or  written  about,  as  immersion,  in  any 
place  or  church,  until  about  the  beginning  of  the  twelfth  cen- 
tury, when  a  few  individuals  began  to  think  that  some  new 


50 

mode  was  better  than  the  old,"  etc.     Let  us  now  lK:ar  what 
Doctors  Wall  and  Campbell  say  on  this  subject: 

Dr.  AVall  (who  exploreil  all  the  voluminous  writers  of  nntiquity,  in  search  of  evi- 
dence of  infant  baptism)  says:  "This  [immersion]  is  so  plain  and  clear,  by  an  infi- 
nite NUMBER  of  passages,  that  as  one  eanno*  Imt  pity  the  we;ik  endeavors  of  such 
Tedobaptisls  as  would  maintain  the  neL'ative  of  it,  so  we  ought  to  disown  and  show  a 
dislikt*  of  the  profane  scoffs  wliieh  some  people  give  to  the  Eniilisli  i\nti-Pedobap- 
tists.  merely  for  the  use  of  dipping;  when  it  was,  in  all  probaliilitv,  the  way  our  Sa- 
viour, and  FOR  cERTMN,  was  the  most  usual  way  by  which  the  ancient  Christians  did 
re'^eive  their  baptism.  'Tis  a  great  wani  of  prudence,  as  well  as  honesty,  to  refuse 
to  grant  to  an  adversary  what  is  certainly  true,  ■and  may  b;'  proved  ro.  It  crrates  a 
jealousy  of  all  the  rest  one  says."  "Tlie  custom  of  tlie  Christjans,  in  the  near  suc- 
ceeding times  [to  the  Apostles]  being  more  largely  and  partii  ularly  delivered  in 
bonks,  is  known  to  have  been  generally  or  ordinarily  a  total  immersion." 

Dr.  Canipliell,  in  his  Lectures  on  Systematic  Theology  and  Pulpit  Eloquence,  says: 
"  I  have  heard  a  disputant,  in  defiance  of  Et\  iiiology  and  use.  maintain  that  the  word 
rendered  in  the  New  Tesiament  baptize,  means  more  properly  to  sprinkle  than  to 
plunge;  and,  in  defiance  of  all  antiquity,  that  the  former  method  was  the  earliest,  and 
for  many  centuries  the  most  gen-ral  practice  of  liaptizing.  One  who  argues  in  this 
manner,  never  fails  to  betray  the  cau.^iehe  would  defcnil';  and  though,  with  respect  to 
the  vulgar,  bold  .isseriions  generally  s  ucceed  as  well  .-is  arguments,  sometimes  better, 
vet  a  Candid  mind  will  disdain  to  take  the  lielp  of  a  falsehood  even  in  support  of  the 
truth." 

The  first  change  of  immersion  for  sprinkling,  by  Protestants, 
is  another  evidence  that  the  practice  of  the  primitive  church 
was  immersion. 

The  Rev.  ftlr.  Bliss,  of  New  York,  states,  on  the  authority 
of  Dr.  Wall  and  others:  "That  John  Calvin,  the  founder  of 
the  Presbyterian  church,  is  the  father  of  this  exchange  of  a 
divine  ordinance  among  Protestants.  He  first  began  it  in  1556, 
at  Geneva,  The  number  of  baptisms  there  became  so  much 
increased,  that  he  first  in  that  year  invented  the  practice  of 
drenching  the  candidate  by  pouring  a  pail  of  water  on  him,  as 
being  more  convenient  than  immersion,  afterwards  of  pouring 
a  less  quantity,  and  finally  of  mere  sprinkling."  Dr.  Wall,  in 
describing  the  fact,  says  that  pouring  was  the  substitute  for 
baptism,  which  Calvin  first  adopted,  and  that  his  sprinkling  was 
only  the  subslitute  of  a  substitute,  and  wns  the  most  scandalous 
thing  ever  adopted  for  baptism.  The  sprinkling  of  our  coun- 
try, then,  tlie  Episcopal  Wall  being  witness,  is  only  the  substi- 
tute of  a  substitute;  quite  another  thing  from  the  divine  ordi- 
nance itself.  Again,  Dr.  Wall  says:  "the  Presbyterian  church 
in  Geneva,  is  the  first  church  on  earth  that  ever  enjoined 
sprinkling."*  This  was  about  the  year  1556.  During  the 
persecutions  of  Queen  Mary  and  the  bloody  Bishop  Bonner, 

*  "Calvin  invented  and  continued  the  Presbyterian  form  of  government,  empowering 
the  few  to  govern  the  many.  This  Presbyteriaci  body  soon  passed  a  law,  at  Gen"va, 
enforcing  sprinkling  as  baptism.  Calvin  alludes  to  tliis  usurpation  of  power,  by  this 
denomination,  when  he  says:  'The  church  (i.e.  Presbyterianism)  hath  granted  to 
herself  the  privilege  of  somewhat  altering  the  form  of  baptism,  retaining  the  substance;' 
i.  e.  the  words."  Here  we  seethe  ground  on  which  sprinkling  was  first  maintained  by 
Protestants. 


51 

many  persons  from  England,  most  of  whom  were  Scotsmen, 
fled  to  the  Continent,  and  visited  Geneva,  and  there  greedily 
imbibed  the  opinions  of  that  church.  On  the  death  of  Queen 
Mary  in  1558,  and  the  accession  of  Elizabeth,  they  in  1559  re- 
turned to  Scotland  with  John  Knox  at  their  head,  and  reported 
"  how  the  tamous  godly  man  John  Calvin,  as  he  was  called,  had 
improved  on  baptism."  This  was  the  commencement  of  the 
introduction  of  the  substitute,  sprinkling,  into  Scotland,  accor- 
ding to  the  new  Edinburgh  Encyclopedia,  and  from  thence  into 
England,  in  1559.  This  Encyclopedia  "  intimates  that  a  po- 
pish council  at  Ravenna  in  1311,  had  said  that  sprinkling  or 
pouring,  would  do  among  Papists,  but  yet  scarce  any  adopted 
it."  The  very  learned  Dr.  Gale,  in  1707,  writes,  (Reflections 
on  Wall,  p.  153,)  "  Baptism  which  all  men  know  was  used  to  be 
administered  in  England  by  dipping  or  immersion,  till  Queen 
Elizabeth's  time  ;  since  which  time,  that  pure,  jwi/niiife  man- 
ner is  grown  into  total  disuse  within  little  more  than  one  hund- 
red  years  ;  and  sprinliling,  the  most  opposite  fo  it  imaginable, 
introduced  in  its  stead.  The  fact  is  notorious,"  &c.  Grotiou3 
asserts  also,  that  "  the  ordinance  has  been  changed  from  immer- 
sion to  sprinkling."  The  learned  Dionysius  Petavius,  refers  to 
the  same  alteration.  We  would  introduce  the  testimony  of 
others  had  we  space. 

"  It  was  not  till  near  the  year  1640,  that  a  parliamentary 
act  was  finally  passed,  requiring  all  the  children  in  the  realm, 
and  all  the  people,  to  be  sprinkled,  under  the  penalty  of  being 
treated  as  outlaws,"  etc.  From  1534,  the  beginning  of  the 
Episcopal  orgtinization,  immersion  was  required  bylaw  till  1640. 
"  When  the  Presbyterian  confession  of  faith  was  adopted  at 
Westminster,  in  1643,  it  was  put  to  vote  in  that  assembly, 
whether  immersion  should  be  retained,  or  sprinkling  substitu- 
ted in  its  place.  Twenty-four  voted  for  immersion,  and  twen- 
ty-five for  sprinkling.  This  small  mnjority  was  gained  by  the 
great  personal  popularity  of  Dr.  Lightfoot,  who  gave  the  cast- 
ing vote  in  favor  of  sprinkling."* 
^ 

*  This  account  of  the  change  of  the  rite  of  baptism,  from  immersion  to  sprinkling,  la 
rbridged  andtaken  mainly  from  Rev.  John  F.  Bliss'  Fourth  Letter,  published  in  the  New 
York  Baptist  Register.  Mr.  Bliss,  who  is  a  graduate  (if  my  memory  serves,)  of  AVil- 
liani's  College,  has  been  for  more  than  twenty  years  a  congregational  minister,  and  du- 
ring tliattime  has  been  instrumental  in  planting  more  than  twenty  Oongregational  chur- 
ihes  in  western  New  York.  He  was  baptized  last  January,  and  ianow  settled  over  the 
Baptist  Church,  in  Henrietta,  New  York.  After  having  studied,  to  use  his  own  lan- 
guage, "twenty-five  years  after  principles  of  christian  union  ;  and  amidst  all  the  fog 
that  is  afloat,  after  the  real  organization  of  Christ's  kingdom  ;"  and  after  Iiaving  thor- 
oughly investigated  the  subject  of  baptism,  (as  his  able  letters  abundantly  show,)  he  was 
at  length  compelled,  like  many  others,  by  evidence  and  truth,  to  renounce  Pedobaptism 
and  become  a  Baptist. 


52 

"  It  i-3  notorious,  that  in  all  the  countries  wliere  tlie  power  of  the  Pope  of  Rome  waa 
never  admitted,  and  among  all  denominations  of  christiaiis,  who  do  not  acknowledge 
their  descent  cither  dire 'tly  or  remote!)'  from  Poperj',  immersion  is  now,  and  a'ways 
lias  heeu  practised :  and  Dr.  Wall  says,  if  v  e  take  the  division  of  the  world  from  the 
three  main  parts  of  it,  all  tho  christians  in  Asia,  all  in  Africa,  and  about  one-third  part 
of  Europe,  are  of  thelasi  sort,  (i.  e.  in  which  third  part  are  comprehended  tliecliris- 
tia;.3  of  Groecia,  Thracia,  Servia,  Bulgaria,  Hoscio,  Wallaehia,  Moldavia,  Ilussia, 
Nigra,  and  so  on  ;  and  even  the  Muscovites,  who,  if  coldness  of  country  will  excuse, 
might  plead  for  a  dispensation  with  the  most  reason  of  any." 

I  have  now  given  you  same  of  the  main  evidences  we  have 
for  believing  that  immersion  only  is  baptism.  First,  the  signif- 
ication of  the  word  ; — Second,  its  figurative  use; — Third,  the 
j)laces  selected yor,  and  the  circumstances  connected  with,  the 
administration  of  the  rite  ; — Fourth,  the  practice  of  the  early 
christians,  and  the  christian  world  for  raanj^  centuries. — I  fear 
I  have  trespassed  somewhat  upon  your  time  and  patience,  as  1 
have  been  more  extensive  in  my  remarks  and  testimonies,  than 
I  at  first  intended. 

Pedohaptist. — Although  you  have  occupied  some  time,  yet  I 
have  listened  with  much  interest  to  the  arguments  advanced,  to 
sustain  your  position,  that  immersion  only  is  baptism  ;  and  I 
must  say,  that  I  deem  them  weiiihty.  Indeed,  the  testimonies 
and  evidences  you  have  produced,  show,  very  conclusively,  that 
the  primary,  radical  meaning  of  baptize,  is  immerse  ;  and  that 
the  Greek  church,  for  aught  we  know  to  the  contrary,  have  al- 
Avays  practised  it  ;  and  that  immersion  M'as  the  practice  of  the 
whole  church,  except  in  cases  of  sickness  for  12  or  13  centu- 
ries. Indeed,  I  do  not  see  how  any  man  can  doubt  this,  still 
there  are  "  certain  places  in  the  scriptures  in  which  some  form 
of  the  word  baptize  occurs,  and  others  where  the  ordinance  is 
mentioned,  which  render  it  very  improhable,  that  an  immersion 
was  cither  positively  enjoined  or  invariably  practised." 

Baptist. — My  dear  friend,  we  have  a  remark  to  make  here, 
which  we  deem  of  importance  for  you  to  remember  :  that  is, 
that  the  evidence  which  we  have  adduced,  proves,  conclusively, 
(hat  the  word  under  consideration,  (Pcdobaptist's  themselves 
being  judges,)  must  mean  immersion.  Hence,  it  follows,  that 
"  we  are  not  permitted  to  assign  to  it  any  other  meaning,  unless  in 
a  given  case  immersion  he  impossible."  "  Where  a  thing  is  prov- 
ed by  sufficient  evidence,  no  objections  from  difficulties  can  be 
admitted  as  decisive,  unless  they  involve  an  impossibility." 
Those  then,  who  would  assign  to  the  word  in  question  the 
meaning  either  o{  washing,  pouring,  or  sprinTtling,  are  bound  to 
prove,  not  only  that  the  idea  of  immersion  is  improbable,  but 
that  is  manifestly  impossible.  This,  I  believe,  cannot  be  done, 
\n  a  single  instance ;  however,   with    th^sg    remarks,  if  voq 


53 

will  please  give  us  the  passages  in  which  it  is  improbable  that 
immersion  was  practised,  we  will  examine  them. 

Pedohaiitisi. — The  canon  you  have  laid  down,  by  which  we 
should  be  governed  in  settling  the  true  meaning  of  a  word,  [ 
must  say,  appears  consistent.  But,  as  1  am  quite  solicituous 
to  hear  your  comments  upon  these  passages,  I  will  first  cite  : 
Mark  7  :  3,  4.  "  For  the  Pharisees  and_^all  the  Jews,  except 
they  wash  (nipsonlai,)  their  hands  oft,  eat  not  holding  the  tra- 
dition  of  th3  elders.  And  when  they  come  from  the  market, 
except  they  wash  {baptizonlia,)  they  eat  not."  Does  not  the 
word  Baptizontia,  here,  mean  wash? 

Baj)tif>t, — If  this  washing  is  included  in  the  idea  of  immer- 
sion it  is  presumed  that  it  does.  Take  for  illustration  the  case 
of  Naaman  (2  Kings  5  :  14).  1  he  man  of  God  commanded  him 
to  go  wash  or  bathe  (lousai)  himself  seven  times  in  the  river 
Jordan,  and  he  went  down  and  dipped  (ebaptiaato)  himself,  etc.* 
Here  the  word  haptizo  is  translated  dipping  and  washing  is 
evidently  included  in,  or  is  the  consequence  of  that  dipping. 

Now  all  that  ]  am  bound  to  prove  here,  is  that  it  is  possible, 
for  the  word  hapt'zonlia  from  haptizo,  to  mean  immerse. 
"Here"  says  Prof.  Ripley,  "  are  two  instances  of  ^vashing  (so 
called);  the  first,  a  matter  of  constant  occurrence  ;  the  second, 
an  observance  performed  after  returning  from  market.  *  *  * 
If,  ordinarily,  the  hands  were  washed  before  eating,  without  re- 
gard  to  the  employment  whi'-.h  had  preceded,  the  reader  is  pre- 
pared to  hear  that  after  returning  trom  a  mixed  crowd  of  people, 
where  he  was  exposed  to  various  occasions  of  defilement,  some- 
thing different  from,  or  additional  to,  this  wasiiing,  (to  wit,)  a 
more  formal  and  thorough  ablution  would  naturally  be  per- 
formed." 

"  In  the  second  place,  two  different  Greek  words  are  em. 
plo5-cd  to  express  the  washing  in  the  two  difierent  cases.  The 
former  is  the  word  usually  employed  when  only  wasiiing  a  part 
of  the  body,  as  the  hands,  face,  or  feet,  is  performed  ,•  the  latter 
is  used  to  denote  the  washing  of  the  whole  body  by  immersion. f 

*  As  it  regards  baptizo  being  translated  to  wash  in  this  and  two  or  three  other  places  in 
the  New  Testament.  I  would  introduce  by  way  of  explanation  tlie  language  of  an  Epis- 
copalian clergyman,  iu  a  letter  to  Bishop  iloadly.  "The  writers  of  the  New  Testament 
nialte  use  of  two  words,  baptizo  and  Louo,  which  leads  us  to  the  precise  meaning  of  bap- 
tism, the  latter  of  whicli  is  almost  the  constant  word  of  tlie  Septuagint,  iu  tliose  very  nu- 
merous places  where  batliing  or  wasiiing  the  whole  body  is  connnauded,  in  contradiction 
to  every  other  practice  of  washing  the  hands  or  feet,  or  sprinkling  or  washing  of  clothes. 
Lousetai  uiluti,  occurs  no  less  than  eleven  times  in  one  chapter,  where  bathing  the  body  is 
appointed  on  sundry  occasions,  as  adistinct  rite  from  washing  the  hands  or  garments,  &c. 
(fcc.  Since  tlierefore,  lousetai  udati  used  times  without  number  in  the  Old  Testament, 
never  imports  less  than  bathing  or  washing  the  whole  body ;  it  follows,  that  baptism 
means  the  same,  when  it  is  expressed  '  by  our  bodies  washed  in  pure  water.'  " 

t  Robinson's  Lex.  Baptizo ;  def.  2 :  remark,  comp.  Nipto. 


54 

The  passage  should  be  translated  thus:  "For  the  Pharisees 
and  all  the  Jews  except  they  wash  their  hands  oft  eat  not ;  and 
v/hen  they  come  from  the  market,  except  they  Ja<7ie  themselves 
they  eat  not.  This  was  the  opinion  ofVatabulus  a  distin- 
guished Professor  of  Hebrew  at  Paris.  He  says,  on  this  pas- 
sage, '  they  cleansed  themselves  more  carefully  from  defilement 
contracted  at  the  market,  to  wit  :  by  not  only  washing  their 
hands,  but  even  by  immersing  their  body.'  Tor  these  numer. 
ous  immersions,  the  Jews  had  the  most  convenient  arrange- 
ments,  and  their  mode  of  dress  Mould  render  the  practice  less 
burdensome  than  it  would  be  with  us." 

Grotius,  on  this  passage  says:  "They  were  more  solicitous  to  cleanse  themselves  from 
the  defilement  they  had  contracted  in  the  market,  and  therefore,  thej'  not  only  washed 
their  hands,  but  immersed  their  whole  bodies."  With  him  agree  Beza,  Fritsch,  and 
others. 

Dr.  Gill,  on  this  passage,  gives  us  a  quotation  from  Maimonides,  a  Jewish  writer,  who  it 
is  presumed,  knew  something  of  the  Oriential  customs  and  practices  of  his  couutrj'nien. 
"  Washed  in  a  laver  wliich  holds  forty  seahs  of  water,  which  are  not  drawn,  every  defiled 
man  dips  himself,  and  in  it  they  dip  all  unclean  vessels,  as  cups,  pots,  &.c." 

.ludson,  in  Ins  sermon  on  baptism  preached  at  Calcutta,  in  1812,  says:  "It  will  not  ap- 
pear strange  to  you  that  the  Jews,  on  returning  from  market,  immersed  themselves  ;  for 
you  are  acquainted  with  the  custom  of  these  eastern  countries,  and  witness  the  frequent 
ceremonial  immersions  of  the  natives."' 

Olshausen,  in  his  Commentary,  says  :  "  Babtizesthai  is  different  from  niptesthai  ; 
the  former  is,  here  the  immersion  and  rinsing  of  the  food  purchased  at  the  market,  to- 
remove  from  it  any  impurity  it  may  have  contracted  ;  the  latter  includes  the  idea  of  rub- 
bing, as  in  every  form  of  washing."  "  Kuinol  and  Meier  agree  with  Olshausen,  that  it  was 
the  '  food  brought  from  the  market'  that  was  said  to  be  '  baptized.'  "  Others,  as  Light- 
foot  and  Schottgen,  show,  from  the  Raljbinical  writers,  that  there  were  two  modes  of  wash- 
ing the  hands  among  the  scrupulous  Jews,  and  believe,  that  here  (Mark  7:  4,)  the  immer- 
sion OF  the  Hands  is  to  be  understood."  It  appears  that  in  either  of  the  above  e.xposi- 
tions,  baptism  was  regarded  as  immersion  instead  of  washing. 

Pedohaptist. — My  friend,  your  explanations  and  testimonies 
thus  far,  are  as  explicit  and  abundant  as  any  one  could  ask  for. 
But  as  I  did  not  quote  the  latter  clause  of  the  4th  verse,  I 
.should  like  to  hear  you  explain  that.  "The  washing  of  cups 
and  pots  and  brazen  vessels  and  ita&Ze^"  (couches).  Is  it  not 
altogether  improbable,  that  the  couches  (for  so  the  word  ren- 
dered  tables  should  be  translated)  on  which  they  reclined  at 
meals,  should  be  immersed  ? 

Baptist. — In  reply  to  your  question,  I  would  remark,  that 
the  learned  Prof.  Robinson  of  Anilover,  gives  his  views  of  the 
mode  of  washing  by  quoting.  Lev.  11  :  32, — showing  that  he 
understands  all  those  articles  were  "put  into  water."  Things 
which  had  been  defiled  by  the  touch  of  a  dead  body  were  re- 
quired  by  the  Lcvitical  law  to  be  cleansed  by  "  being  put  into 
water." 

Judson,  on  this  passage,  aays :  "  What  is  more  probable  than  that  they  abused  the  first 
institution  of  this  ceremony,  by  superstitiously  immersing  a  variety  of  articles,  not  inclu- 
ded in  the  divine  command."  And  it  is  historically  certain  that  they  did  this.  Maimon- 
dics,  the  commentator,  quoted  above,  states  that  it  was  a  traditionary  custom  of  the  Jews, 


55 

to  immerse  ali  vessels  rcceivedof  a  Gentileor  an  Israelite  cjesigued  for  eating,  driuking> 
and  cooking,  before  using  them.  Sec  liis  testimony  as  given  hy  Gill  on  tliis  passage, 
Again,  he  says:  '■  \Vhyrever  in  the  law,  washing  of  the  Hesh,  or  of  the  elutlies  are  men- 
tioned, it  means  nothing  else  than  the  dipping  the  whole  body  in  a  laver."  He  als«  states 
that,  "abed  that  is  wholly  defiled,  if  a  man  dips  it  part  by  part,  it  is  pure.  A  pillow  or 
bolster  of  skin,  he  must  dip  them,  and  lift  them  up  by  the  fri/iges."  "Scaliger  and  Mis- 
neh,"agree  in  this,  that  the  Jewish  washings  of  the  body,  clothes,  cups,  tables,  brazen  ves- 
sels, beds,  <fec.  was  always  by  immersion  in  water."  Their  tables,  it  should  be  remember- 
ed were  not  like  ours,  but  couches  or  beds  on  which  they  generally  slept,  or  matrasses  on 
which  they  reclined  at  their  meals. 

These  facts  establish  all  that  is  desirable  in  the  case,  as  they 
show  that  it  is  not  only  practicable  for  these  vessels  to  be 
cleansed  by  immersion,  but  that  it  was  in  all  probability  done. 
In  some  of  the  cases  it  was  plainly  commanded,  and  "  we  are 
compelled  by  reason  and  the  laws  of  languajre,''  to  give  to  the 
word  its  true  meaning.  And  even  the  shadow  of  a  reason  can- 
not  consistently  be  uro;ed  why  the  baptism  of  these  cups,  etc., 
should  not  ba  translated  immersion  of  cups,  etc. 

Pedohaptist. — There  is  another  passage  I  should  like  to  have 
you  explain,  it  is  in  Luke  11  :  37,  38.  '•  And  as  he  was  speak- 
ing, a  certain  Pharisee  besought  him  to  dine  with  him,  and  he 
went  in  and  set  down  to  meat.  And  when  the  Pharisee  saw 
it,  he  marvelled  that  he  had  not  first  washed  (ebaptisthe,)  be- 
fore dinner." 

Baptist. — After  what  has  been  said  of  the  passage  in  Markj 
the  same  practice  to  which  this  evidently  refers,  it  would  seem 
that  no  further  remarks  are  necessary.  It  appears  by  what 
preceded  this  account,  that  our  Savior  had  been  exposed  to  a 
mixed  crowd,  "  and  the  superstitious  Pharisee  was  surprised 
that  he  should  sit  down  to  meat  without  tirst  purifying  him- 
self by  bathing  or  washing  his  whole  person  according  to  the 
CiJ3tom."  Bruce,  the  celebrated  traveller,  informs  us  that  in 
Abyssinia,  the  sect  called  Kemmont,  "wash  themselvesyro;/i 
head  to  foot  after  coming  from  the  market,  or  any  public  place, 
where  thoy  may  have  touched  any  one  of  a  different  sect  from 
their  own,  deeming  all  such  unclean."  "  Is  it  strange  then, 
1  ask,  "  to  find  the  superstitous  and  self-righteous  Pharisees 
immersing  their  couches  for  purification  or  themselves,  after 
mingling  in  a  crowd  at  the  market  or  elsewhere."  Milton,  the 
celebrated  Poet,  says :  "  It  is  in  vain  alleged  by  those  who,  on 
the  authority  of  Mark  7  :  4;  Luke  11  :  38;  have  introduced 
the  practice  of  affusion  in  baptism  instead  of  immersion,  and 
that  to  dip  and  sprinkle  mean  the  same  thing.  Since  in  wash- 
ing,  we  do  not  sprinkle  the  hands  but  immerse  them." 

Pedohaptist. — The  testimonies  you  have  produced,  to  confirm 
your  views,  together  with  the  explanatory  remarks,  render  the 
passages  thus  far,  very  plain.     But  there  is  one  other  passage 


56 

that  I  have  heard  our  minister  bring  forward  as  triumphant 
proof,  that  baptizomcans  to  sprinkle, that  is  Heb.  9  :  10.  "  Which 
stood  in  meats  and  drinks,  and  divers  haptisms,  {haptisinois.) 

Now  I  will  just  assume  his  ground,  and  you  may  an- 
swer the  argument  if  you  can.  Amongst  the  "divers  washings" 
(haptismata,  baptisms)  of  the  old  dispensation  referred  to  in  this 
passage  there  is  evidently  included  all  the  various  modes  of  .Tew- 
ish  purification ;  and  consequently  the  rantismata,  or  sprinklings 
which  were  the  most  numerous."  This  being  the  fact,  the 
conclusion  is  irresistible  and  certain,  that  Paul  terms  these 
sprinklings,  baptisms. 

Baptist. — Your  conclusions  might  be  just,  if  the  premises  had 
their  foundation  in  truth.  But  why  should  you  suppose  that 
the  baptisms  under  the  law,  included  all  the  purifications  re- 
quired by  the  law?  Is  this  asserted  here,  or  in  any  other  place 
in  the  scriptures?  Your  position  is  an  assumed  one.  You 
have  taken  for  granted  here  the  very  thing  to  be  proved,  i.  e. 
that  divers  baptisms  refer  to  the  sprinklings.  Now,  all  that  is 
necessary  to  refute  your  reasoning  in  this  case,  is  to  demand 
the  proof  of  your  premises.  This  begging  the  question,  that  is, 
taking  a  thing  for  granted,  is  a  very  common  and  convenient 
way  of  proving  it. 

But  it  is  evident  from  the  Mosaic  ritual,  that  immersions 
■were  frequent  among  the  Jews,  and  on  some  occasions  required 
by  law.  Hence  it  is  obvious,  "  the  phrase  alludes  to  the  immer- 
sion of  the  different  things,  that  by  the  law  were  to  be  immers- 
ed." It  is  also  evident  that  if  there  is  any  word  in  Greek  that  can 
specifically  mean  immersion,  it  must  be  the  Vv'ord  used  here,  as 
we  have  abundantly  shown.  From  what  we  have  said,  it  is 
manifest  that  the  primary  meaning  of  the  term  is  not  altogether 
impossible.  Prof.  Robinson  translates  the  word  washings,  but 
refers  to  Lev.  11  :  32,  where  various  things  were  to  be  cleans- 
ed by  being  ^  put  intowaier.^  This  surely  is  evidence  that  the 
learned  Profcsser  supposed  the  Apostle  to  mean  immersions  in 
this  phrase,  "The  term  'divers  baptisms,' Baumgarten  and 
others  rightly  explain  as  being  '  of  men  and  of  things.' "  "If 
this  be  the  sense,  no  one  will  object  to  the  idea  of  immersion." 
"  That  Dr.  Miller  and  others  should  explain  it  otherwise,  by 
making  it  mcnv.  ininierc-iions,  sprinkling  and  the  like,  may  perhaps 
be  accounted  for  without  much  ditliculty.  Nevertheless,  con- 
tending as  ho  does,  for  the  proselyte  baptism  o^ persons,  and  ad- 
mitting the  various  ablution  of  things,  he  might,  had  he  felt 
disposed,  have  found  the  diversity,  as  others  do,  consisting  in 
the  subjects  imAobjects  to  which  the  ablution  is  applied. 


57 

Rabbi  Salmon,  speaking  of  the  ablution  of  persons  on  Ex.  29,  says :  "  not  only  the  hand* 
and  feet  were  waslied,  but  the  whole  body." 

Starck,  says  :  "  The  baptisms  with  the  Jews  were  not  by  sprinklino,  but,  in  addition  (fc 
washing  the  whole  body,  an  entire  immersion.  The  Hebrew  word  cannot  possibly  signify 
sprinkling-.  Baptism  is  never  in  the  New  Testament  compared  with  Levitical  spriukliugSr 
but  with  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ." 

Schneckenburger,  in  mentioning  the  lustrations  practiced  among  tha  Jews,  says:  "be- 
fore prayer  a  batsiino,  or  at  least  washing  the  hands  was  common."  "  The  Jews  bathed 
BEFORE  entering  the  temple  or  the  synagogues."  Quoting  Philo,  who  uses  the  words 
rendered  bathing,  washing  the  body  by  bathing.  "  He  shows  that  the  Samaritines  did 
the  same,  LAVARE  AQIS  CORPDS."  "For  this  reason,"  he  adds  :  synagogues  were  erected 
by  the  side  of  rivers."    "  On  festival  occasions,  they  were  particular  in  their  purilications." 

Theopbylact  says,  "purifying  themselves  according  to  the  custom,  by  batliing  and 
fasting."  Philo  says,  "^purifying  their  bodies  by  bathings  (lohtrois)."  Tcrtullian  speaks 
of  Jews  who  BATHED  every  day,  because  they  were  defiled  every  day."  Epiphauius  sayi», 
'•  the  Hemorobaptists  maintained  that  one  ouglit  to  be  baptized  everyday  in  water  (eni'da- 
Ti)."  Justin  Martyr  says,  "  these  were  Pharisees,  and  combats  their  error,  saying, 
Isaiah  did  not  direct  you  to  go  into  the  BATH'(cis  balaneion,)whom  not  even  the  sea  could 
purify." 

llaimonide^  Mikvaoth,  says :  "  every  one  that  is  baptized  must  immerse  the  whole 
body."  Schneckenburger,  speaking  of  proselyte  baptism  quotes  the  Talmud,  and  shows 
that  the  male  and  again  the  female  were  led  into  the  water,  the  female  up  to  her  neck,  each 
then  immersing  themselves  in  water;  andon  ])age  145,  says,  "  the  ordinary  lustrations  of 
the  .lews  were  performed  in  the  same  way."  In  another  place  he  observes,  "  the  Jewishi 
lustrations  were  performed  by  total  or  partial  immersions." 

"  What,  then,  are  we  to  suppose  Paul  meant  by  baptism  in 
this  passage  (Heb.  9  :  10,)  Dr.  Miller  says,  •  the  sprinklings  of 
blood.'  We  challenge  him  to  produce  a  single  passage  in  all 
the  range  of  sacred  and  pagan  literature,  which  shall  furnish 
a  parallel,  in  which  baptism  shall  signify  sprinkling  with  blood. 
How  often  do  the  sacred  writers  rhetorically  name  an  import 
tant  part,  and  make  it  stand  for  the  whole  !  When  the  ear- 
ly writers  attempt  an  examination  of  the  various  Jewish  rites  of 
purification,  they  always  distinguish  immersions  from  sprink- 
lings." Thus  do  the  Apostolical  constitutions.  "  Theodoret, 
too,  in  his  Com.  on  this  pa.Hsn.gR,  distinguishes  between  baptisms 
and  purifications  by  sprinkling  :  "Unclean  persons  were  m- 
inersed  and  purified  by  sprinJ{li7igs." 

Pedobaptist. — The  exposition  you  have  given  of  the  above 
passages,  in  connexion  with  the  appropriate  remarks  made,  and 
the  learned  testimonies  you  have  cited,  render  their  import  so 
plain,  as  to  demand  my  assent.  Here  I  must  acknowledge  (that 
in  conformity  to  my  promise  when  we  commenced  this  "con- 
versation,") 1  feel  myself  constrained,  by  such  an  amount  of  ev- 
idence, to  accede  to  your  views  of  these  passages,  though  I 
would,  consulting  my  own  feelings,  gladly  have  the  testimony 
otherwise.  But  still,  there  are  a  number  of  passages  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  which  I  have  heard  urged  as  containing 
insuperable  objections  to  the  idea  of  immersion.  With  your 
consent,  I  will  quote  these  passages  separately,  and  present  the 
Pedobaptists'  views,  provided  you,  in  reply,  will  give  us  your  ex*« 
position  of  the  passages. 


5S 

Baptist. — I  have  no  objection  to  give  you  my  views  of  the 
texts,  if  you  think  they  will  bs  of  any  service  to  you. 

Pedobaptist. — They  may  be  the  means  of  convincing  me 
that  you  are  either  right  or  wrong.  With  these  remarks  I  will 
cite  Acts  10  :  47 — "Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that  these  should 
not  be  baptized,  M'ho  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  well  as 
we"?  Does  not  this  evidently  mean,  can  any  man  forbid  water 
to  be  brought  in,  &c. 

Baptist. — If  Cornelius  had  wished  to  be  afTused,  sprinkled, 
who  would  have  possessed  the  presumption  to  forbid  his  bring, 
ing  water  into  his  own  house  1  Surely  no  one.  This  cannot 
be  the  import  of  the  passage.  It  may  mean,  can  nny  man,  (al- 
though he  be  a  Jew,)  who  has  a  private  bath,  tank  nr  cistefn, 
forbid  its  use,  that  these  Gentiles  should  not  be  baptized?  This 
construction  would  render  it  a  pertinent  question.  But  the 
plain  import  of  the  question  I  bt;Iieve  is  simply  this,  "  Can  any 
one  forbid  the  baptism  of  these  persons'"?  Then  there  is  noth- 
ing in  this  text,  that  requires  the  word '"  baptized' to  have  any 
other  than  its  usual  seusc, i7nmcrscd." 

Pedobaptist. — This  exposition  appears  quite  reasonable.  The 
next  case  is  that  of  the  jailer,  recorded  in  Acts  16  :  33.  Prof. 
Stuart  you  know  says:  The  jailer  and  his  household  were  bap- 
tized at,  or  in  the  jail,  How  could  they  have  been  baptized  by 
immersion? 

Baptist. — Prof.  Stuart  allows  the  "  possibility"  of  there  hav- 
ing buen  a  "bath"  in  thejail,  in  which  the  keeper's  family  were 
immersed.  This  "possibility"  is  all  that  need  be  asked.  But 
this  narrative  not  only  does  not  present  any  objection  to  the 
idea  of  immersion  ;  it  furnishes  positive  evidence  in  its  favor. 
The  following  appeal's  to  have  been  the  order  of  events.  Paul 
and  Silas  were  thrust  into  the  inner  prison  ;  an  earthquake  oc 
curred  ;  the  jailer  sprang  in  and  fell  down  before  I'aul  and  Si- 
las;  he  brought  them  out  [of  the  prison,  says  Barnes]  ;  they 
speak  to  him,  and  to  all  that  were  inhis  house;  he  then  washed 
their  stripes  ;  baptism  was  next  performed  ;  and  after  baptism, 
the  company  ?-etor/jcd!  to  the  house,  (v.  34.)  After  instruction, 
then,  had  been  given  in  the  house,  baptism  was  performed;  and 
after  baptism,  the  company  returned  tothe  house.  Did  they  not 
leave  the  house,  in  order  that  baptism  might  be  administered  ? 
And  why  did  the  administration  of  baptism  require  them  to 
leave  the  house,  if  it  were  not  that  they  might  go  to  a  hath  or 
other  place  convenientfor  immersion'''  ? 

Pedobaptist. — I  must  acknowledge  that  it  is  to  me  wholly  in- 
explicable,  why  ihey  should  leave  the  house  to  administer  the 


5» 

ordinance  of  baptism,  if  it  was  performed  by  sprinkling,  for  i^ 
appears  they  relumed  to  it.  But  on  the  supposition  they  were 
immrT.se:!  it  appears  very  reasonable. — Still  you  are  aware,  that 
baptism  is  thought  by  many  to  mean  a  washing,  in  Acts2'2: 
16.  And  now  why  tarriest  thou,  arise  and  be  baptized  and 
wash  away  thy  sins. 

Is  not  baptism  in  this  place  called  the  washing  away  of  sin  1 
And  is  it  not  evident  that  baptism  means  to  wash  or  sprinkle  ? 
And  is  not  tliia  opinion  confirmed  by  the  fict  that  he  aroso 
straitway  and  vvas  baptized  ?  Where?  Why  evidently  in  tho 
same  room  wiicrc  hu  lay  ;  for  all  the  circumstances  go  to  prove 
conchisivtdy  that  this  was  the  case.  Not  one  syllable  is  said 
about  tiicir  lenvia:;;  ths  room,  nor  about  Paul's  bjing  imuiersed. 

Baptist. —  My  friencj,  you  arc  aware  that  the  spirit  of  inspira- 
tion has  made  use  of  the  Greek  word  thapto,  which  signifies  to 
bury,  to  descr:bc  the  ordinance  of  baptisui.  And  you  know  it 
is  said,  the  rich  man  died,  and  was  buried.  Where?  "  Why  ev- 
idently in  tho  very  room  where  he  lay,  for  all  the  circumstanr 
cesgo  to  prove  conclusively,  that  this  was  the  case."  Not  one 
syllable  is  said  about  their  leaving  the  room,  nor  of  the  rich 
man's  being  entombi  dor  covered  up  in  the  earth.  "And  is  it  not 
evident  that  burying  h(;re  moans  to  sprinkle  or  afFuse  a  little" 
dirt  upi)n  the  man  ?  The  inference  we  have  drawn  respecting 
the  burial  of  the  rich  man,  is  not  more  rash  and  inconsistent, 
than  the  one  you  have  drawn  respecting  Paul's  baptism.  Now, 
although  there  is  nothing  said  respecting  the  manner  the  rich 
man  v/as  buried,  still  I  conclude  ho  must  have  been  interred  or 
covered  up  in  the  earth,  because  this  is  the  meaning  of  the 
word.  And  fur  the  same  reason,  I  conclude  that  Paul  was  ira- 
mersed. 

Let  us  now  look  at  the  scope  and  evident  meaningof  the  pas- 
sage,"  Wh\'  tarriest  thou,"  i.  e.  "  Why  dost  thou  delay  or  linger 
or  lose  time  ?"  Hustea — arise,  and  be  baptized,  (immersed.) 
The  iVord  arise  is  obviously  opposed  to  tarriest,  and  implies  im. 
mediate  moiion  or  action.  Wash  away  thy  sins, — "  Immersion 
in  fare  water  would  have  the  effect  of  washing."  "The  word 
for  wash  here  is  apolousai  from  louo,  the  term  used  by  the  Seven- 
ty where  the  bathing  of  the  whole  body  is  intended,  in  distinCr 
tion  to  the  washing  of  the  hands,"  etc.  Keeping  in  view  the 
meaning  of  louQ,  let  us  read  the  passage  : — Arise  and  be  sprink- 
led,* or  poured  out  (like  wine  or  some  liquid)  and  wash  or  bathe 
9,way  thy  sins.     "Is  not  the  allusion  to  washing  totally  disfigr 

*Dr.  Campbell. — "  Had  baptizo  been  employed  in  the  sen.-^e  of  raino,  to  sprinkle,  (whiclj 
as  far  as  I  know,  it  never  is  in  any  use  sacred  or  classical,)  the  expression  would  doubtletj^ 
Jiaye  ticen,  I  indeed  baptize  water  upo.n  you," 


lired?"  We  have  shown  that  the  word  baptlzo,  means  to  im- 
merse.  Had  it  been  so  translated  here,  it  would  have  been 
beautiful  and  appropriate.  Finally,  we  will  listen  to  Paul's 
description  of  his  own  baptism.  "  So  many  of  us  as  were  bap- 
tized into  Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized  into  his  death,  therefore 
we  are  buried  with  hi?n  by  baptism,"  Rom.  6  :  3,  4.  Now  this 
burying  by  baptism  must  mean  immersion.  But  you  may  in- 
quire  where  was  he  immersed?  I  reply,  that  is  not  material. 
Perhaps  in  a  tank  or  bath,  for  they  were  common  in  that  coun- 
try.— But  I  will  obligate  myself  to  find  the  bath,  tank,  river  or 
pool,  where  Paul  was  "  immersed,"  when  you  will  find  the 
grave  in  which  the  rich  man  "  was  buried."  The  Bible  says, 
that  Paul  was  "buried  by  baptism,"  and  that  the  rich  man 
"died  and  was  buried."  Now  I  believe  both  of  these  facts, 
though  I  do  not  know  the  body  of  water,  in  which  the  one  was 
baptized,  or  the  grave  in  which  the  other  was  buried. 

Pedobaptist. — All  doubts  about  this  last  passage  are  now  re- 
moved ;  I  perceive,  that  it  is  quite  as  apposite  for  you  to  inquire 
where  the  rich  man  was  buried,  as  it  is  for  me  to  inquire,  where 
Paul  was  immersed.  But  it  never  occurred  to  me  before,  that 
Paul  had  given  us  a  description  of  his  own  baptism,  by  saying 
that  he  and  his  Roman  brethren  were  buried  in  baptism.  It 
appears  to  me,  that  this  description  given  by  Paul  of  his  own 
baptism  is  satisfactory  and  decisive  proof,  that  he  was  immers- 
ed. But  if  immersion  is  the  only  Christian  baptism,  how  could 
the  3000  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  (Acts  2.)  have  been  baptiz- 
ed by  twelve  men  ?  Where  was  this  immersion  performed  ? 
♦*  Was  it  in  streams  or  brooks,  near  Jerusalem?"  We  think  not, 
for  there  is  not  one  word  that  even  intimates  that  such  was  tlic 
fact.^  Pedobaptists  generally  think  it  could  not  have  been  with- 
in the  city  ;  for  say  they,  that  was  built  "  on  the  top  of  a  hill, 
far  from  any  brook,  or  river  deep  enough  for  immersion." 
Such  being  the  fact,  it  is  wholly  incredible  that  the  3000  were 
immersed  the  same  day. 

Baptist. — I  would  just  remark  here,  should  there  be  any  diffi- 
culty in  accounting  for  so  large  a  number's  being  im  nersed  in 
one  day,  the  same,  or  a  great  difficulty  rests  against  the  theory 
and  practice  of  our  opponents.  They  tell  us  that  "  the  chil- 
dren of  converta  were  baptized  together  with  their  parents. 
This  must  have  greatly  increased  the  number  to  be  sprinkled 
and  consequently  makes  the  account  more  incredible."  But 
you  inquire,  "  how  could  the  3000'  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  have 
been  immersed  by  twelve  men,"  as  though  it  was  wholly  incredi- 
ble.    With  as   much  propriety  I    might  inquire,   how  could 


61 

Abraham  at  the  advanced  age  of  ^9  yeata,  perform  the  rite  of 
circumcision  upon  all  the  men  that  were  born  in  his  house, 
and  all  that  were  bought  with  his  mone}',  in  the  self  same  day, 
that  he  received  the  command,  Gen.  17  :  23.  (Those  born  in 
hig  own  house,  amounted  to  318;  see  Gen.  14  :  14).  This 
must  have  been  more  difficult,  and  must  have  required  more 
time,  than  for  each  of  the  apostles  to  immerse  250  persons  in 
one  day. — "  Again  how  was  it  possible  (1  Kings  8  :  63,)  for 
Solomon  on  the  day  of  the  dedication  of  the  temple  to  ofier  a 
sacrifice  of  2  and  20,000  oxen,  and  120,000  sheep  ?"  We 
can  earily  conceive  how  these  things  might  have  been  done, 
and  that  is  sufficient  for  our  purpose. 

You  intimate,  that  Jerusalem  is  a  place  very  destitute  of 
water.  From  what  source  have  you  derived  this  information? 
From  the  well  known  fact,  that  it  was  a  very  populous  city  ; 
and  "  the  metropolis  of  a  flourishing  country,  a  country  too, 
whose  prescribed  religion  required  the  constant  use  of  water 
for  purifications  and  abkitions,  and  all  of  whose  male  irthabit- 
ants  were  required  to  assemble  there  three  times  every  year  ;" 
or  from  the  historical  account  of  the  many  pools  and  fountains, 
whicii  the  city  is  said  to  have  contained  ;  among  which,  might 
be  mentioned  the  molton  sea,  furnished  by  Solomon  for  the 
service  of  the  temple,  containing  about  seven  hundred  barrels 
of  water;  and  the  ten  other  lavers,  each  of  which  held  between 
nine  and  ten  barrels  ;  and  the  fountain  of  Siloam,*  whose  waters 
issuing  frDin  a  rock  were  received  into  tu'o  large  pools,  and 
fh  nee  ghded  into  the  Kidron  a  considerable  stream  which  run 
alon^-  the  valley  on  the  east  of  the  city;  besides  these,  there 
was  the  pool  n^  Belhesda,  which  according  to  Brown  and  Maun- 
droll,  was  360  feet  long,  120  broad,  and  8  feet  deep.  In  addi. 
tion  to  these,  we  might  add,  that  it  was  so  common  a  thing  for 
the  Jews  in  tiie  city  to  have  tanks  or  cisterns  near  their  dwel- 
linirs  for  bathing,  and  other  private  uses,  that  cistern  digging 
was  followed  as  a  business.  We  see  that  there  could  have  been 
no  want  of  water  in  the  city,  and  yet  there  are  men  who  labor  to 
lod^e  in  '  ignorant  minds'  the  belief  that  Jerusalem  was  so  sadly 
destitute  of  water  that  the  3000  could  not  have  been  immersed. 

Again  it  is  evident,  that  there  could  have  been  no  want  of 
time,  f>r  there  was  only  one  short  sermon  delivered  by  Peter 
immediately  after  9  o'clock  A.  M. — (see  Acts  2d,) — so  that  the 
principal  part  of  the  day  was  before  them.  Since,  therefore, 
th  're  were  places,  water,  and  time,  sufficient,  the  twelve  Apostles 

*  According  to  Josephus,  this  fountain  "  had  water  in  it  in  abundance." — Jewish  War,. 
Book  5lh,  Chap.  4th., 


62 

■might  have  performed  the  work  in  three  hours,*  and  that  too, 
without  leaving  the  prucincta  of  the  templo,  for  there  was  the 
molten  sea,  the  ten  oilier  lavcrs  and  "dipping  room;"  (conven- 
iences abundant  for  their  accommodation.)  But  there  is  strong 
probability,  that  all  the  administrators  were  present  on  that  me- 
morable  occasion,  (see  the  previous  chapter,)  if  so,  there  were 
82  baptizers,  and  consequently  not  more  than  37  candidates  for 
each.  That  being  the  ciLse,  they  might  all  have  been  baptized 
in  twenty. live  minutes.  The  pool  of  Bethesda  alone  was  suf- 
ficient  to  accommodate  all  the  administrators,  etc.  And  final- 
ly, the  3,000  might  have  been  baptized  in  private  baths. 

^s"the  biu'den  of  ■pi-oof  lies  on  those  that  object  to  immer- 
eion,  can  they  prove  that  immersion  could  not  possibly  be 
practised  on  this  occasion?"  Hear  the  language  of  Prof.  Stu- 
art :  '*It  is  true,  we  do  not  know  that  baptism  was  performed 
by  the  apostles  only,  nor  that  all  of  the  3,000  were  baptized 
before  the  going  down  of  the  sun.f  The  work  may  have  ex. 
tended  into  the  evening  ;  and  so  many  being  engaged  in  it,  and 
more  time  being  given,  there  is  a  probability  that  the  work 
shouKl  have  boen  performed,  although  immersion  was  practised." 

"  Suppose,  however,  there  were  a  difficulty  in  explaining  this 
baptism,  inasmuch  as  the  notice  is  very  summary,  is  there  any 
thing  better  than  7nere  conjecture  to  show,  that  they  were 
eprinkludf  As  tha  exact  arrangements  for  this  baptism  are 
not  knovvn,  all  that  is  necessary  is,  to  "  show  whwt  7nlght  he 
done  in  various  ways,  so  that  there  could  be  no  necessity  of 
departing  from  the  usual  rite  of  baptism."  *  *  "But  is 
there  any  thing  in  the  whole  Bible  to  prove,  that  it  was  by 
sprinkling?"  Why  was  there  not  some  indication  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  narrator,  to  advertise  the  reader  of  so  remarka- 
ble a  de[)arture  from  the  customary  baptism?  In  the  contro- 
versy between  the  Eastern  and    Western  Church,  why  did  not 

*The  orrlinance  has  becu  frequently  aJminibtercd  iu  less  ratio  of  time  than  this.  We 
have  seeuforty  candidates  immersed  by  one  administrator  at  the  rate  of  about  two  a  min- 
ute. 

t"It  is  no  where  asserted  in  the  scriptures  that  three  thousand  were  either  conveut- 
KD  or  BAPTIZED  OH  this  diij"  (the  day  of  Pentecost.)  We  are  not  informed  whetlier  fifty 
or  FIVE  FUNDRED,  or  MORE  Were  BAPTIZED  on  this  occasion.  We  are  simply  told,  in  refer- 
ence to  those  wlio  were  then  '  pricked  in  their  hearts,'  w!io  'gladly  received  the  apostles' 
word,' that  THEY  were  baptized.  'And,' we  are  further  informed,  'the  same  day  there 
were  added' — not  were  baptized — '  about  3,000  souls.'  The  j-criptures  also  warrant  us  ia 
saying,  that  the  apostles,  and  the  one  hundred  and  twenty  disciples,  mentioned  in  the  pre- 
ceding chapter,  were  all  present ;  and  as  many  others  in  Jerusalem,  and  in  that  region,  as 
could  convenieiitly  be  at  the  feast  of  Pentecost." — (Fuller  on  ccunmunion  :  note,  p.  71.) 

Bloomfield  says:  "  We  need  not  suppose  all  [of  the  3,000]  were  b.iptized.] 

Dr.  Starek,  court  pre.icher  at  Darmstadt  well  remarks,  tliat,  "  In  the  history  of  those 
converted  by  Peters  preaching  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  there  is  nothing  wliieli  compels 
us  to  infer,  that  all  these  were  baptized  on  the  spot,  and  on  the  same  d.iy,  which  is  tal^en 
for  granted  by  uU  those  who  would  prove  sprinkliiig,  from  this  passage.," 


63 

the  Romans  teuch  the  Greeks  the  true  meaning  of  the  Greek 
word, and  show  them,  that  the  re-baptism  ofa  "  sprinkled  chris- 
tian" was  an  insult  to  Peter  and  the  three  thousand?  Why 
did  not  Cyprian,  when  called  upon  by  Magnus  to  decide,  whelh- 
er  persons  who  were  not  immersed  in  their  baptism,  were  legiti- 
mate  christians,  instead  of  reasoning  from  the  Old  Testament, 
and  from  the  nature  of  the  symbolical  act,  settle  the  matter  at 
once,  bv  saying,  that  the  apostles,  on  the  da}'  of  Pentet^ost,  and 
in  private  houses  and  prisons,  baptized  by  sprinkling  or  pour- 
ing ?  He  lived  too  near  the  apostles  to  dream  of  such  a  thing. 
There  is  not  a  trace  of  sucJi  an  opinion  in  all  the  Latin  or  Greek 
Fathers,  though  they  often  had  occasion  to  discuss  the  validity  of 
baptism  that  was  notbyiimnersion..  Could  Novatian,  Cyprian, 
Cornelius,  Chrysostom,  and  others,  have  neglected  so  capital 
a  point  in  discussing  the  validity  of  pof^nn^  in  clinic  baptism, 
if  things  were  actually  as  Pedobaptist  writers  conjecture  ?  Brct- 
schneider,  in  his  Theology,  vol.  2,  p.  686,  felt  himself  compel- 
led to  say,  the  "conjecture,  that  the  three  thousand  wore  sprink- 
led, is  too  much  of  a  conjecture  to  be  trusted." 

Schneckenburgcr,  in  his  Proselyte  Baptism,  inquires :  "Did  the  apostles  atlministor  bap- 
tism to  the  three  thousand  in  one  day,  or  did  the  three  thousand  perform  a  lustration  upon  ■ 
themselves?"  and  in  a  note,  "this  is  more  probable  than  that  they  were  sprinkled."  What 
must  be  the  impression  oftliat  erudit  critic,  who  had  made  deeper  researches  thau  any 
other  man  living  into  the  nature  of  .Jewish  lustrations,  to  induce  hiin  thus  to  maintuiu  that 
of  all  conjectures,  that  spriukling  is  one  of  the  most  improbable." 

"  But  there  are  facts  on  record  in  the  history  of  the  church, 
which  remove  every  difficulty  in  the  waj-  of  the  immersion  of 
the  entire  three  thousand." 

"On  the  great  sabbath  of  the  Easter  festivl  the  IGth  day  of  April,  A.  D.  403,  CryROstom, 
with  the  assistance  of  the  clergy  of  his  own  church,  baptized  by  iiuniersioii  300  persons. 
Ves,  one  man  assisted  only  by  his  presbyters,  in  oue  day  and  in  one  place,  immersed  3000  pei>- 
sons  ;  and  that  too,  notwithstanding  the  christians  were  twice  attacked  by  furious  soldiers, 
the  enemies  of  Chrysostom." 

"  So  in  490,  Remigius,  bishop  of  Rheims,  baptized  in  one  day,  by  immersion,  Clovis, 
king  of  France,  and  three  thousand  of  his  subjects. 

I  will  only  remark,  in  relation  to  the  above  historical  facts,  that  the  baptisms  referred  to 
were  administered  on  easter  day,  to  commemorate  the  resurrection  of  Christ ;  and  it  was 
common  to  reserve  all  the  baptisms  of  the  year  for  that  day.  Hence,  the  number  of  caa- 
didates  who  carae|forward  at  the  same  time."* 

In  view  of  the  above  facts  and  the  examination  of  alleged 
improbabilities,'  I  ask  what  right  we  have  to  depart  from  the 
observance  of  the  primitive  rite  of  baptism,  as  prescribed  by  our 
S.ivior? 

Pedobaptist. — Your  explanations  and  remarks,  showing  what 
might  he  done,  and  the  conclusion  you  have  drawn  from  the 
fact  that  none  of  the  Latin  and  Greek  fathers  ever  referred  to 

*  Christian  Review,  Vol.  3,  pages  91,  92, 


64 

the  baptism  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  to  justify  pouring  in  clinic 
baptism  ;  together  with  the  import  of  the  term,  and  the  histori- 
cal facts  you  have  cited,  (which  by  the  by,  I  never  heard  of  be- 
fore,) seem  to  me  abundantly  sufficient,  to  render  it  not  only 
possible,  but  altogether  probable,  that  the  3000  were  immersed  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost.  But  then  what  do  you  think  of  the  re- 
marks of  Prof.  Stuart,  the  man  you  have  so  often  quoted  to  for- 
tify your  positions  ;  he  says,  "  For  myself,  I  cheerfully  admit, 
that  baptizo  in  the  New  Testament,  when  applied  to  the  rite  of 
baptism,  does,  in  all  probability,  involve  the  idea,  that  this  rite 
was  usually  performed  by  immersion,  but  not  always.  I  say 
usually  a.T\d  not  always,  for  to  say  more  than  this,  the  tenor  of 
some  of  the  narrations,  particularly  in  Acts  10:  47,48.  16: 
32,  33,  and  2  :  41,  seem  to  me  to  forbid.  I  cannot  read  these 
examples,  without  the  distinct  conviction,  that  zm,me?-5Z07i  was  not 
practise  I  on  these  occasions,  but  washing  or  affusion.^^ 

Baptist. — The  passages  above  referred  to,  we  balieve  we 
have  shown  to  be  entirely  consistent  with  the  idea,  that  immer- 
sion  was  practised.  But  where  are  the  clear  evidences  that 
produced  the  *'  distinct  conviction"  in  his  own  mind,  that  on 
these  occasions  immersion  was  not  practised.  Has  Prof.  S., 
exhibited  these  evidences,  if  so,  what  are  they  ?  'I'he  reader 
will  doubtlessly  be  surprised,  to  learn  that  these  evidences  is 
nothing  better  than  mere  conjecture.  Indeed  it  could  not  pos- 
sibly be  otherwise,  for  their  is  noihine;  said  in  these  passages, 
touching  the  manner  in  which  the  rite  was  performed.  ]s  it 
not  passing  strange,  that  a  man  of  Prof.  Stuart's  attainments, 
should  consider  mere  conjectural  evidence  sufficient  to  warrant 
him,  in  deviating  from  what  is  in  all  probibility  the  require- 
ment of  Christ.  Again  hear  the  Professor's  admission,  when 
speaking  of  the  circumstances  connected  with  the  administi'a- 
tion  of  the  rite  in  the  New  Testament.  "I  find  none,  I  am 
quite  ready  to  concede,  which  seems  absolutely  to  determine 
that  immersion  was  not  practised."  Since  then,  Prof.  Stuart 
admits  that  immersion  was,  in  all  probability,  the  primitive  rite 
of  baptism;  and  since  he  is  quite  willing  to  admit,  that  there  is 
nothing  in  the  circumstances  of  baptism  that  absolutely  ex- 
eludes  the  idea,  that  immersion  was  practised ;  and  since  he 
has  not,  nor  cannot  prove,  from  a  single  example  in  the  New 
'J'estament,  that  baptism  is  any  thing  other  than  immersion  ^ — 
••  we  hold  that  every  principle  of  fair  interpretation,  requires 
him  to  explain  the  doubtful  passages  by  those  that  are  clear  ; 
to  extend  the  usual  meaning  of  the  word  to  every  passage  in 
which  that  word  occurs,  unless  there  is  something  in  the  cir- 


65 

cumstances  which  undeniably  demands  a  different  interpreta- 
tion." 

Pedobapiist. — 1  must  say,  I  know  not  how  to  reconcile  Prof. 
Stuart's  practice  with  his  concessions,  but  as  this  is  not  my 
business,  I  will  present  some  objections  to  immersion,  which  are 
thought  by  many  deserving  of  particular  attention  ;  but  before 
I  proceed  to  this,  (should  you  deem  this  a  proper  time,)  I  should 
be  pleased  to  hear  you  advance  your  reasons  (which  you  prom- 
ised,)  for  not  believing  the  affirmation  so  confidently  made 
by  Pedobaptists,  that  the  legitimate  meaning  of  haplizo  is  to 
wash  and  cleanse  as  well  as  immerse. 

Baptist. — We  have  already  alluded  to  the  fact,  that  washing 
may  frequently  be  regarded  as  a  consequential  meaning  of  hap. 
tizo  ;  as  the  thing  to  be  washed,  is  generally  dipped  in  water.* 
The  same  remark  may  be  made  with  regard  to  cleanse.  The 
case  of  Nam-nan  has  been  instanced  (see  page  53,  and  the  note.) 
But  as  it  is  confidently  asserted,  that  baptizo  signifies  to 
cleanse  and  wash,  etc.  I  would  ask,  "  does  baptizo  mean  to 
cleanse,  when  we  speak  of  baptizing  a  bucket  into  a  fountain, 
in  order  to  fill  it  ?  or  when  we  speak  of  baptizing  a  ship,  so  that 
it  becomes  engulphcd  in  the  sea?  Does  it  mean  to  cleanse  or 
wash,  when  Plutarch  relates  that  the  soldit-rs  baptized  wine 
from  casks  with  cups  in  order  to  drink  ? — that  a  general  bap- 
tized  his  hands  into  blood  and  wrote  an  inscription — that 
weapons  were  found,  two  hundred  years  after  the  battle  of  Or- 
chomenus,  baptized  in  the  earth?  Is  this  its  meaning  in  Jose- 
phus,  where  hesays  that  Simon  bapcized  the  sword  into  his  own 
throat?  or  in  [Aquiia.]  Job  9  :  31.  "Thou  shalt  baptize  me 
in  the  mire,"  or  in  Hippocrates,  where  he  orders  a  blister  to  be 
baptized  in  milk  and  Egyptian  ointment  ? — Surely,  these  bap. 
tisms  do  not  endorse  the  assertion,  that  baptism  is  a  gene- 
ric term  and  imports  the  application  of  water  in  any  manner. 
These  examples  with  others  tliat  might  be  quoted,  show  thiit 
baptizo  as  well  as  bapto,  signifies  to  dip  or  immerse  and  has  no 
allusion  to  water  u'haiever,  except  that  element  is  expressed  or 
implied. 

Pedohaptist. — It  must,  I  believe,  be  conceded  by  all  unpreju- 
diced men,  who  will  examine  the  evidences  you  have  produced, 
that  to  wash  :ind  cleanse  are  not  the  primary,  literal  meanings 
of  the  word  baptizo;  indeed,  I  do  not  see  how  any  candid  man 

*Alt)ngiiig  says-.  "The  word  h.iijtism — properly  signifies  immersion;  improperly, 
by  ametonomy  of  the  end,  washing."  ISeza. — "  To  Dliiiige  into,  to  dip  into  and  take  out 
again,  whence  Washing  doth  follow."  Alstedius. — "To  immerse  and  not  to  wasll 
eicept  by  consequence."    These  are  the  testimonies  of  learned  Pedobaptists. 


66 

can  doubt  this,  for  in  most  of  the  cases  of  baptism  you  have 
instanced,  it  is  impossible  to  take  the  meaning  of  either  wash 
Of  cleanse,  out  of  the  passages.  The  same  might  bo  said  with 
regard  to  sprinkling,  pouring,  'vetting,  &c.  But,  as  I  intima- 
ted to  you,  that  I  had  a  number  of  objections  to  present  against 
immersion  as  the  only  baptism,  which,  by  the  advocates  of 
sprinkling,  are  deemed  weighty,  I  will  proceed  to  mj' purpose, 
by  saying:  that  "Christ  intended  his  people  should  be  free 
from  inconvenient  and  burdensome  rites  ;  but  immersion  vrould 
often  be  inconvenient,  and  sometimes  impracticable."  What, 
1  would  ask,  must  be  done  in  such  cases  ? 

Baptist. — It  is  true  the  numerous  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the 
Jewish  dispensation,  together  with  the  time,  trouble,  toil,  and 
expense  involved  in  this  obsiu'vance,  are  abolished.  Since 
the  observance  of  these  burdensome  rites  and  ceremonies  are 
done  away,  the  founder  of  the  gospel  dispensation  has  institu- 
ted  only  two  external  rites,  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper. — 
Though  he  has  made  "  immersion  as  essential  to  baptism,  as 
roundness  is  to  a  ball,"  "  shall  we  therefore  charge  him  with 
imposing  upon  his  people  a  yoke  like  that  which  rested  upon  the 
children  of  Israel,  too  grievous  to  be  borne?" 

The  mere  mention  of  the  "inconveniences"  attending  the 
scriptural  observance  of  this  rite,  causes  those  to  smile,  who 
have  tested  the  weight  of  this  objection  by  actual  experience. 

As  it  regards  the  impracticability  of  immersion  in  some 
countries,  and,  in  certain  circumstances,  in  all  countries  facts 
will  abundantly  shov/  to  a  reflecting  mind  that  this  objection 
is  of  little  value  to  its  possessor.  Immersion  is  practised  at  this 
day  amid  the  torrid  suns  of  Asia  and  Africa,  and  the  perpetual 
snows  of  Siberia.  And  whenever  life  or  health  would  be  en- 
dangered by  the  administration  of  this  ordinance,  it  should  be 
postponed  or  entirely  omitted.  Should  the  providence  of  God 
deprive  any  one  of  this  privilege,  then  it  would  be  the  duty  of 
that  person  devoutly  to  acquiesce  in  this  providence.  "  A 
willing  mind  is  accepted  of  God  according  to  what  a  man  hath." 
If  a  person  have  not  the  physical  ability  or  opportunity,  to  ob. 
serve  this  ordinance,  then  of  course  it  is  not  required.  The 
privation  in  this  case  would  be  no  greater,  than  in  many  others 
where  christians  are  denied  by  sickness  or  other  causes  the 
privilege  of  attending  the  public  worship  of  the  sanctuary,  and  of 
laboring  for  the  conversion  of  t'.inners;  or,  v/here  one  is  "  pre- 
vented by  the  loss  of  sight  from  obeying  the  command  to  search 
the  scriptures." 

Pcdobaptist. — Although  this  answer  of  yours  is  perfectly  sat- 


67 

kfacfory,  yet  in  some  respects  your  denomination  are  q'liiein, 
consistent  wiih  themselves,  for  insiance,  "il,eir  practice  with 
■  respect  io  the  Lords  fenpper,  is  inconsistent  with  their  strict 
adherence  to  the  primitive  mode  of  bapiism.  'J'hey  do  not  ob- 
serve I  he  requisitions  of  Christ  with  regard  to  '  ihe  time'  or 
'  the  place,'  or  '  the  postaie,'  of  celebratini^r  ,he  ordinanre  of  the 
supper— nor  do  they  use  the  same  k-iad  of"'  bread'  or  '  wine  '" 

Bapti^t-My  friend,  in  reply  I  would  say,  the  command  of 
our  Lord,  "  THIS  do  ye  m  remembrance  of  me,''  —  "  had  no 
reference  whatever  to  tha  circumstances  of  ceiebratin"-  the  «i)p- 
per;  it  referred  to  the  eatm^  of  brea;l  and  the  drinkin'^r  of  win^ 
in  commcmoratjon  of  his  deaih,  without  any  allusion^  to  time  ' 
'  place,'  Of  '  mar.ner.'  So  in  relaiion  -o  baptism  ;  Christ  com'- 
iDands  his  followeis  to  be  Loptized  [imnerfed,]  witfout  refer. 
en  ce  to  time  place  or  manner.  In  each  case,  ue  aie  bound  to 
do  just  luhat  he-commanded.  In  the  Lord's  Supper  we  <,,e  com 
manded  to  Partake  of  bie.d  and  wine,  in  grateful  rememhrance 
of  Christ  ;  in  baptism  we  are  commanded  to  perfurm  the  act 
REPRESENTED-^?/  the  word  hoptizey* 

This   objpctionis   gromidless;   ic    rests   en   the   assumption 
thai  ^mmcrs^on  is  only  a  circumstance  of  baptism,  whde  it  has 
been  already  shown,  it  is  net  a  circumstance  attendin'^  it  buf  be 
longs  to  the  nature  of  baptism  itself."  ' 

Finally,  tins  objection  is  a  plain  admission  that  the  primi'ive 
baptism  was  immersion. 

Fedobaptist.—W ahcni  attempting   to  replv  to  your  very  a  Die 
and  appropriate  answer,  Iwill  present  my  n'ext  objection"  "Im 
mersion    is  unfavorable  to  collected  serious  thou.^ht  in  the  per 
son  who  submits  to  it ;  and  /nakes  on  the  spectators  an  impres- 
sion  adverse  to  religion."  ^ 

Baptist -In  reg-^idw  the  first  part  of  the  objection,  mul- 
titudes many  of  whom  were  iimid  and  dehcaie  females  " 
Uie'^wa,!;''  f'^^^fl^'"^^"^'  mifauliering  step,  gone  down  into 
the  wate  ,  and  been  buried  xoith  Christ  ia  baptism,  and  now 
stand  ready  ,o  '■  testify  to  the  serene  composure;  and  ihe  tender 
solemniiy  of  their  feelings,"  and  the  peace  of  mind  ,hey  enioyec 
on  that  occasion.  The  ordinance  ,s  so  beautifully  emblematical 
of  the  fc,unda.,on  of  the  believer's  hope,  the  death  and  resurreo^ 
tion  ofChnst,  and  consequently  so  full  of  "  rich  and  precious  in- 
struction,  as  lo  impart  a  "  sustaining,  elevatmg  power  ''  which 
causes  lis  subjects  to  rise  superior  to  the  infirmities  which 
er  them  "''"™'^^"^^^''  ^^'^"'^  F^bably  disarm  and  overpow- 
*Jfroi.  jcwcu.  


•68 

With  reference  to  ths  latter  part  of  the  objection,  that  the 
impression  produced  on  the  spectators,  is  unfavorable  to  religion, 
must  surely  be  regarded  as  the  offspring  of  prejudice  ;  as 
it  is  every  where  conuadicted  by  experience.  Who  that  ever 
witnessed  the  administration  of  this  ordinance,  did  not  deeply 
feel  that  the  scene  was  most  solemn  and  sacred.  Ihevenerated 
divines  Amhew  Fuller  and  Dr.  Steadman  state,  in  their  own 
account  of  their  lives,  that  the  impressions  they  received  on 
seeing  persons  baptized,  i.  e.  inimersed,  were  the  means,  under 
God,  of  their  conversion.  "  Thousands  of  others,  also,  have 
been  led,  by  the  same  metms,  to  embrace  the  Savior,  who  was 
thus  set  forth  before  their  eyes,  as  '  buried  and  risen  again'  for 
their  redemption."  But  where  have  you  ever  met  with  the  ac- 
count of  a  person  who  received  his  first  permanent  religious  ini*" 
pressions  from  witnessing  the  sprinkling  of  an  infant  or  adult? 

''  Some  have  even  gone  so  far  as  to  speak"  of  the  rite  of  im- 
raersion  as  "  indecent."  It  would  be  well  for  such  persons  lo 
reflect,  ihat  if  there  had  been  no  departure  from  the  primitive 
rile  of  baptism,  as  confessedly  practised  by  tha  Apostles,  and 
the  Christian  world  for  many  centuries,  such  a  sentiment  as 
this,  would  never  have  found  a  '•  local  habitation"  in  the  mind 
of  any  disciple  of  Christ.  It  would  also  be  well  to  remind  such 
persons,  that  they  should  be  cautious  how  they  urge  this  senti- 
ment, lest  they  be  found  guilty  of  stigmatizing  an  ordinance  of 
Chris',  with  the  epithet  "  indecent."  If  Christians  cherish  such 
sentiments  and  feelings  as  these  against  this  gospel  ordinance, 
how  indecent,  in  thfeir  view,  must  he  be  who  instituted  it,  and 
the  Christian  world  who  practised  it  generally  for  fifteen  centu- 
ries,  and  even  those  who  now  contend  for  its  observance. 

Pedobaptist.—My  friend,  a  sense  of  duty  induces  me  to  ac- 
knowledge that  you  have  thus  far  answered  the  objections  pre- 
sented very  conclusively.  But  the  hour  has  arrived  when  my 
presence  is  absolutely  required  at  home.  P.  is  unnecessary 
for  me  to  say,  ttiat  I  have  been  much  gratified  as  well 
as  edified  with  this  long  conversation.  But  as  I  have  man}' 
more  objections  to  urge  against  your  peculiar  sentiments, 
with  your  permission,  I  should  like  to  lesume  this  conversation, 
at  as  early  an  opportunity  as  will  suit  your  convenience. 

Baptist  — If  agreeable,  please  call  at  an  early  hour  to-morrow 
evening.    I  shall  then  probably  be  at  leisure. 


CONVERSATION  RESUMED. 


Baptist. —  My  dear  sir,  I  am  gratiiierl  to  see  you  ao  early  ;  es 
pecially  as  I  am  at  leisure  and  yo'i  have  infonned  me  ihat  you 
liave  more  objections  to  piesent  I  hope  I  may  beabK;  to  answer 
them  in  a  salisfictory  manner.     Will  you  please  to  proceed? 

PeIobaptist.—\ly  brother,  the  objecmn  I  now  present,  is 
thought,  by  many  Pfidob^ptists,  to  be  insuperable.  "There  is  no 
express  command  in  the  New  Testament  limitirfg  us  to  immer- 
sion. Had  it  been  the  desig  i  of  Christ  that  his  people  should 
confine  themselves  exclusively  to  this  mode  of  administration; 
why  did  he  not  so  plainly  make  known  his  will,  that  there 
could  be  no  mistake  about  it." 

.Ba^Jis^.— Surely,  this  objection  can  have  no  weight  with  you, 
or  any  one,  except  those,  who  will  not  admit  what  we  have 
ascertained  by  definite  and  irrefragable  evidence,  that  the  only 
proper,  legitimate  import  of  the  term  baptizo,  is  immerse,  over- 
whelm. If  this  lias  not  been  satisfactorily  determined,  then  it 
is  absolutely  impossible  to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  any  Greek 
word.  — When  under  the  law  they  were  required  to  sjirinkle 
blood  and  water  upon  the  leprous  person,  and  to  pour  oil  upon 
his  head,  it  app-^irs  that  no  farther  explanation  was  necessary. 
The  words  pour  and  sprinkle  were  so  definite,  that  they  could 
not  reasonably  misapprehend  their  meaning.  Baptizo  is  equally 
as  definite  in  its  import,  as  either  of  the  above  words,  and  as 
explicit  and  unequivocal  in  iis  meaning  as  our  English  word  im- 
merse. Prof.  Stuart  cheerfully  admits  that  it  does  in  all  probn 
ability  signify  to  iin  nerse.  Now  ailmit'Jng  the  truth  of 
this  concesjion,  I  ask,  what  right  has  any  man  or  class  of 
men  to  go  contrary  to  what  is  in  all  probability  the  requirement 
of  Christ?  For  to  suppose  that  Jesus  Christ  used  words  out  of 
their  proper  signification,  is  neither  mor3  nor  less  than  to  suppose 
that  he  intended  to  mislead  and  deceive  his  hearers,  a  conclusion 
at  which  every  pious  heart  revolts  We  are  led  then,  to  the 
irresistible  conclusion;  that  when  Christ  said  to  the  Apostles 
"Go  teach  all  nations  baptizing,"  &c.  he  commanded  them  to 
immerse  believers  or  disciples  ;  lor  we  are  very  confident  that 
that  IS  the  import  of  the  phrase.     Again,   the  act  of  immersion 


70 

cannot  bu  expressed  in  the  Greek  langimj^e  more  plainly  than^ 
it  is  in  the  New  T.istam-^nt.  Such  bein'^  the  f.ict,  we  must 
conclude,  _that  Christ  intended  that  we' shouM  be  immersed 
when  he  commanrleil  ns  to  be  biptized.  The  word  he  employ- 
ed to  represent  this  ordinance,  is  as  definite  and  specifif^,  in  its 
import,  as  any  word  in  tho  language  *  Should  the  Rinlist 
object    to  this,    "  we  wonll    arrrne    on  this    point  wirh    hiin  as 

*  The  ioUowiaij  Greek  words  and  iiieir  coaipjuads,  most  ol  which 
occur  in  the  Septu  i^ini  of  the  Old  and  the  Greek  ol  the  New  Testament 
are  used  generally  "with  reference  to  ihe  application  of  water  for  various 
purposes,  viz:  Rnino,  Raniizo,Cheo,  Echeo,  Nipto,  Louo,  Pluno,  Bapto 
and  Baptizo,  Agnizo,  K;tthairo,  and  some  others  of  less  note.  Now  in 
so  many  wc  rds  used  in  reference  to  water,  is  there  not  nne  of  them  of  such 
definite  import,  as  to  determine  ore  particular  application  or  use  of  wa- 
ter'?"    Let  us  examine  the  use  of  some  of  these  words  in    Scripture. 

1.  "Spiinkle  and  its  derivatives  occur-  62  limes  in  the  Old  and  New 
Testament:-  31  times  it  is  /aino  in  the  Greek,  23  times  the  compounds  of 
c/ieo,  and  8  time>  other  words,  but  not  once  bapto  or  baplizo. 

2.  "  To  potir  with  its  derivatives  occurs  152  times: — 94  times  it  i.s  chco 
and  its  compounds,  58  times  other  -words  and  phrases.  Of  these  there  are 
27  varieties,  but  not  once  bapto  or  baptizo. 

3.  "  To  ?ra.s/i  occurs  139  times:— 38  times  it  i?  «i;>/(7,  face,  hands,  or 
feet;  49  times,  louo,  the  body;  44  times,  phmo,  g  irments,  or  such  like- 
5  times,  buplo  or  baptizo  the  effect  of  imm.eision,  3  times  dieo  and  chruzs 
melapho  Ileal  ly. 

4.  "  To  dip,  occurs  with  its  deiivatives,  23 limes:— Once  it  is  moluno, 
properly  to  steiivi,  as  when  Joseph's  coat  was  stained,  our  translation 
"  dipped  in  the  blood  ol  a  kid."  It  is  -21  times  bo-pto  or  baptizo.  Never 
once  r  1710  to  sprinkle,  t'/co  to  pour,  ?w/Jj  to  wash  the  face,  hands  or  feet 
Ittio  to  wash  the  body,  plunu  to  wash  garments,  or  any  of  their  compounds 
or  derivatives. 

5.  "  To  plvnge  occurs  but  once,  and  then  it  is  bapto. 

6.  "  Tebel  or  taval  in  the  Hebrew  Old  Testament  occurs  17  limes:— 
In  the  Sepluagiiit  it   is    16  times  translated  by  bapto  or  baptizo,  once  by 

.moluno.  to  dye.  Junius  and  Tremmelins  translated  it  1(3  times  by  ti7i<ro, 
immcigo,  and  dcmcrgo;  and  it  is  translated  IGtimes  in  English  by  dip  and 
plunge,  once  by  dyed." 

"In  the  English  Old  and  New  Testament  [as  we  have  .seen}- the 
word  5;)r/7i/i:/s occurs  62  times.  The  word  /wwr  and  its  derivatives  1.52 
times.  To  wtfsA  and  its  derivatives,  i39  limes.  To  f^'p,  with  its  derava- 
lives,  22  times.  To  plunge  once.  Now  the  question  that  determines  the 
point  is,  did  the  translators,  in  one  intance,  translate  the  same  word  to 
sprinkle  and  to  dip"?  We  positively  say  no"  Again,  did  thev  ever,  i-a 
one  instance,  translate  thesawe  word  as  signifying  to  dip  and  lo  pourl  We 
positively  answer  7)0.  Baplo^xiAba  tizoare  never  translated  eltherto  sprin- 
kle, or  to  pour.  Asaia,  JRaino  nnd  RcMtizo.  ^re  never  once  translated 
to  dip,  immerse,  or  plunge."  From  these  facts  it  is  evident,  "  that  in  the 
judgment  of  the  triinslators,  these  words  are  so  definitely  expressive  of 
certain  actions,  that  they  never  coull  be  translated  into  our  language  by 
one  and  the  same  word  Sprinkling  and  pouring  are  actions  so  nigh  to 
each  other,  and  in  effect  so  much  the  same,  that /?«i7i,o  and  the  compounds 
of  C/ico,  are  both  translated  sprinkle.  But  so  impassable  the  gulph  be- 
tween either  jjoMrmg'  or  sprinkling  and  dipping,  that  never  once  is  raino 


71 

*^e  do  with  the  iTiiiversalist.  To  the  latter,  we  would  say^ 
you  deny  that  the  words  used  in  the  New  Testament  to  denote 
the  duration  of  fu'.ure'punishirient,  express  wiih  certainty  ihe 
idea  of .  endless  duraiion  Give  us,  then,  words  which  can 
express  it  with  more  certainty.  If  you  can,  we  3'ield  the  point 
for  which  we  have  contended.  If  yoii  cannot,  you  charge  upon 
the  richest  language  in  the  world,  the  smgida'r  fault  of  lacking 
a  term  to  express  definiiely  an  idea  familiar  10  every  mind.  You 
virtually  declare  that  idea  to  be  inexpressible.  To  the  Rantist 
we  would  say,  you  deny  that  the  term  liapiiza  denotes  the  idea 
df  imuiersion  specifically  an  1  with  ccrtaimv.  Give  us,  then,  a 
term  ihat  denotes  it  wnh  more  certiiiuiy.  If  you  can,  we  yield 
GUI'  cause.  If  you  cannot,  yon  virtually  declare  a  simple  act, 
known  lo  all  nuiions,  and  familiar  to  every  mind,  to  be  imxpres- 
sible  in  ihe  Grer-k  Kiniruage. 

"This"i3  a  fair  cballenge.  It  brings  the  exegetical  argument 
within  a  narrow  CO  1  pass.  A  child  can  understand  ii,  and  all 
maj'  see,  ihat,  in  the  posiiion  we  lake,  far  fioin  being  so  bigoted 
as  to  cuiiicnil  merely  for  ihe  mode  of  an  ordin.ince,  we  comend 
for  baptism  itself,  f..r  all  that  consiuules  its  essential  nature,  its 
beauiy  and  its  dignity." 

Pedubaptist.—lns\e,\(\  of  slopping  to  notice  vour  pxcelli.;nt  re- 
ply to  my  o'.ijpction,  I  would  inquire,  why  should  we  "trouble 
ourselves  aboul  a  question  of  much  or  little  w.iier.?"  And 
again,  as  b.iptism  is  a   ''  litile  punctilio,"  a  subject  that  produces 


chco,   hmo,   nirto,   or  piano,   translated  dip,  immerse,  or  pUin?e." 

Heme  it  is  manifest  t'rom  ihese  facts,  that  if  our  Savior  intended  to 
enjoin  immer.sion  e.xclusively  on  his  disciples,  baplizo  is  the  very  word  he 
should  have  made  use  ol',  as  there  is  none  iliat  can  more  defii.itely  ex- 
press the  ai  tion; 

Again,  had  he  intended  in  this-  ordinance  that  water  shonld  bo  applied 
in  any  manner,  he  would  probaoly  have  made  use  of  the  word  agnizo  to 
YWxMy ,  or  kath air 0  lo  cleanse,  (or  these  words  express  no  definite  m^mner 
of  applying  water.  Now  as  he  did  njt  use  an  indefiniie  term  the  una- 
voidable conclusion  is,  that  "  he  did  not  command  an  indefinite  action  to 
be  perlormed;  and  as  he  did  not  use  a  word  that  definitely  signihed  to 
pour  ov  sprinkle,  he  did  not  command  those  actions  to  be  pet  formed;  but 
as  he  adop  ed  a  wmd  that  definitely  signified  to  dip  or  immerse,  he  com- 
manded definitely  this  action  and  this  only  to  be  performed." 

Since  our  Savior  selected  a  word  the  most  definite  in  the  language  to 
express  hi^  will,  and  since  ihat  word  literally  signifies  to  dip  or  immerse, 
■and  since  he  has  de&cribed  none  bul  believers  in  Christ  as  fit  recipients 
of  the  rite,  it  foUovi's  that  he  does  not  sanction  any  thing  as  Christian  bap- 
tism, bul  the  immersion  of  a  propel  subject  in  water,  agreeably  to  his 
eomm;ind.  (The  quotation  marks  will  show  that  we  are  indebted  to  A. 
■Campbell  for  the  greater  part  of  this  note.) 


72 

much   excitement  when   agitated,  ought  we  not  therefore  to 
ceasft  conversincf  about  it? 

Baptist  — My  frienfl,  baptism  is  not  "  a  question  of  much  or 
little  water."  Tiie  only  qupstion  on  this  subject  i-,  what  consti- 
tutes Christian  baptism?  And,  as  this  lias  been  ascertained  by 
indubitable  evidence,  to  be  the  inrimersion  of  a  believer,  it  follows 
that  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to  have  water  enough  for  the 
administration  of  the  rite  or  it  cannot  be  performed.  Those  who 
donoi  regard  bap'ism'as  a  mere  trifle  or  ''nonessen'iril,"  will  no 
doubt  stiil  continue  to  urge  its  importance  on  suitable  occasions. 
But  those  who  deem  it  a  mere  irifli;!  or  non  essential,  I  shouM 
think,  would  bd  really  ashamed  to  become  exciiefl  by  it.  Can 
it  be  possible  that  any  thing  which  .Tehoviib  rommands  man  to 
do,  i^:  nonessential,  or  of  so  little  consequence  as  not  to  deserve 
his  attention  or  conversition? 

Pedobapiisi.  —  My  Pedobaptist  friends  say,  "  what  is  the  use 
of  conversing  aboiil  this  subject?  It  surely  can  make  nodiffer-'* 
ence  in  what  manner  water  is  apphed  in  baptism  if  it  be  but 
applied  " 

Baptist. — Here  we  would  remark,  "  that  if  the  mode  of  reasoning  adop- 
ted by  those,  who  maintain,  that  baptism  means  any  application  of  water,, 
whatever  be  the  mode,  were  universally  employed,  the  character  of  oar 
philology  would  be  utterly  ruined.  Let  the  same  principle  he  conceAed 
to  Unitarians  and  Universnlists,  in  the  exposition  of  disputed  passages,, 
and  no  parade  about  the  laws  of  ianiiuage  and  usus  loquendi,  will  be  able 
to  uphold  the  pill  irs  of  orthodoxy.  To  strip  'he  matter  of  its  learned 
dignity,  and  make  it  plain  to  the  most  common-sense  view  cf  the  subject, 
we  will  give  a  specimen  of  this  mode  of  criticism  in  plain  English.  We 
take  the  word  to  fiij  and  maintain,  ihal  it  does  not  mean  any  one  kind  of 
motion,  as  that  by  means  o\' wings,  but  that  it  merely  expresses  motion  of 
amj  tcind.  Movemmt  is  the  radical  idea.  The  usvs  loquendi  shows,  that 
it  is  said  indifferently,  tiiat  '  the  snow  flies,'  '  the  dust  flies,'  '  the  timbers 
fly,'  'the  atones  fly,'  'a  man  flies  at  another  in  a  rage,'  'the  carriage  flies 
through  the  streets,'  'a  iryin  flies  bick  from  his  engagements,'  'time  flies,' 
and  amons' the  rest,  'birds  fiy'  All  this  can  be  made  out  in  a  tenfold 
clearer  light,  than  the  position  we  are  combatting." 

"  If  baptism  menns 'any  application  of  watei','  it  would  indeed  have 
puzzled  a  Greek  to  find  out  what  it  meant  whea  used,  as  it  often  is,  of  a 
ship.  How  coukl  he  divine,  whether  it  inennt,  that  a  vessel  was  «'«<  by 
launching,  or  that  it  was  rv^.s'ed  externally  by  thr  waves,  or  internally  by 
the  crew,  or  that  it  sprung  a  leak  and  wei  the  cargo,  or  that  rain  7<?<;i5  the 
sails  and  rigging  and  deck,  or  that  a  surge  swept  the  deckl  But,  accor- 
ding to  the  view  oflearned  critics,  the  nature  of  the  word  is  such,  that  it 
can  have  but  one  meaning,  viz  :  Iho.t  it  went  under  water;  and  this  is  its 
invariable  meaning,  according  toclassic  usage. 

"It  i.stousa  matter  of  indiff"erenee  whether  the  word  be  said  to  have  one 
signification  or  jnamj  significations,  provided  the  many  be  included  in  the 
oiie." — Christmn  Review,  Vol.  3,  VP-  ^'')  9^- 

Pedobaptist.— My  fiiend,  your  illus'ra'ions  designed  to  show 
that  baptism  cannot  inaport  the   application   o{  water    in  any 


73 

manner,  biit  that  it  must  mean  immersion,  are  the  most  decisive 
that  I  have  ever  heard.  But  I  presume  you  are  aware,  that 
very  man^'  Pedobapti^ts  iiffirin  that  sprinkle  is  one  definition  of 
baptizo.    Is  not  ihis  a  fact? 

Baptist. — My  brother,  we  have  alread-y  siveathe  leiricograph-* 
ical  definition  of  baptizo,  and  said-  enough,  it  would  seem,  to 
convince  any  candid  mm  I,  that  bri,ptizo  c  inaoi  fairly  be  render- 
ed to  sprinkle.  But  I  will  proceed  to  sho^v  you  how  Pedobap-* 
lists  atiempt  to  make  it  our.  Tne  Greek  language  formerly 
came  tons  through  the  chauiiel  of  the  Liim;  i.  e  Latin  defi- 
nitions  were  given  to  Greek  words,  and  English  definitions  to 
Latin  wor^U.     Forexunnle: 

Baptizo.     Mergo,  immer°ro   abluo,  lavo. 

M'-rgo,  to  put   under  witer,  sinl^,  dip  in,  duck,  immerse. 

Immergn,  lo  plunge,  to  drencli  or  dip  over  head  and  ears;  to  drown, 
immerge,  sink. 

Ablao,  lo  wash  clean,  wnsh  away,  purify,  remove,  blot  out. 

JLavn.  to    wash,  rinse,  biihe,  besprinkle,  purge. 

"Now  L-ivo  is  a  secomlary  and  Cv)n-equentiat  meaning  of  Baptizo;  and 
'  the  fo'irth  signification  of  this  woid  is  given  by  Ainswarth's  Latin  Lexi- 
con to  besprinkle.  This  definition  he  derives  from  this  expression  in  a 
Latin  poet:  "Tabellas  kcrymis  lavi>;"  "Thou  b:sprinklest  the  leuer 
with  tears,"  whi  jh  ought  to  have  b^en  rendered!  was').  A  similar  expres- 
sion is  rendered  to  wnsh  in  he  Gospel.  "She  ivasked  his  feet  with  her 
tears."  Again,  this  definition  is  ob  ained  bv  pa-sing  the  word  through 
two  languages,  and  then  taking  about  the  twentieth  definition.  Now,  I 
object  to  this  principle  of  interpretation. 

Pedobaptist. — My  brother,  whv  do  you  object  to  this  rule  of  interpreta- 
tion'? [suppose  it  is  bacau.se  it  gives  besprinkle  as  one  definition  ol  bap- 
tizo. 

Baniist. — I  object  to  it  not  on  that  account;  bu'  because  it  proceeds  upon 
the  principle  that  the  mjst  remjie  dellnition  assigned  to  a  word  by  Lexi- 
cons, afrer  passing  it  through  one  or  two  languages,  is  as  truly  the  lit^.ral 
import  ot  the  word  as  the  first  or  primirv  signification.  Now,  on  this 
principle,  I  affirm  that  it  is  utterly  impossible  to  ascertain  the  literal  mean- 
ing of  most  words. 

To  illustrate  this,  let  us  pass  the  word  dip  into  the  French  language, 
and  then  b  ick  into  the  English  agiin.  The  French  according  lo  Boyer 
have  given  this  word  four  definiiions  to  express  its  various  uses. 

Dip.     Tremper,  plon'.jer,  mouiller,  engager. 

Trem'iei\  to  dip,   soak,  imbue,  bathe. 

Plonger,  to  dip,  duck,  immerse,  pi  unze,  overwhelm,  cajt  inlo,  stab. 

MouiUer,  to   anchor,  drop  anchor,  cast  anchor,  &c. 

Engager,  to  pawn,  mortgage,  pledge,  enjrage,  enlist,  fight. 

Suppose  now,  that  a  gentleman  employed  as  translator  for  one  of  the 
French  Journals,  should  in  translating  -in  account,  from  one  of  our  Re- 
ligious periodicals,  of  a  Clergyman's  alt  fpiTig- a  man  on  the  Sabbath,  in- 
stead <it  sjiving  the  pi  lin  import  of  the  term  dip,  should  nform  his  readers 
that  the  Rev.  gentleman /oj/.o'/i  or  .'toJi  <^  a  man  on  ihe  Sabbath.  I  ask 
now,  would  he  give  the  true  meaning  of  the  word  dip?* __^ 

*  It  is  my  impression  that  1  have  .somewhere  in  my  reading  met  with  a 
similar  illustration  to  the  above. 


74 

Pedobaptisl. — Certainly  not,  and  he  had  no  right  to  translate  it  thitST 
because  th;t  is  not  its  primary,  literal  meaning. 

£/7/;<r5<.— My  friend,  he  might  wiih  propriety  plead,  that  he  had  the 
same  ri^ht  to  translate  it  lofisiht  or  st  b,  that  Pedubaplisis  have  to  render 
jt5  corresponding  Greel^  term  baptizo  to  sprinkle;  and  that  he  had  adopt- 
ed prec  sely  the  same  rule  of  inierpretation  in  rendering  this  word,  that 
Pedubapiisisob-erve  in  defining  baptizo. 

Pedobajtist^My  bio;her,  dees  not  tiie  word  dip  Ibrm  a  rare  exception 
to  this  ri,le  ol  translation.  It  it  does  not,  it  will  be  easy  to  expose  it,  by 
producinguther  similar  examples  or  illustraiions.  Can  you  produce  anyl 
Bai  tisL- — I  could  produce  a  multitude  of  similar  examples  lo  the  word 
dip,  lo  prove  the  invalidity  of  ihis  principle  of  interpretation.  Let  us  ex- 
amine this  principle  by  pas'ing  ihe  following  important  Greek  words  in 
the  New  1  esiament  ihrousli  the  Latin  intu  t'.ie  Engli'^'i). 

Pisieuo,  to  believe.     Aga.ao,\o\o\e.     ilionfos,  eternal,  everlasting. 
PisTKUo.     Credo,  fide,  committo. 

Now,  as  a  sptcimen  of  the  Entrlish  definitions  Ainsworth  appends  to 
comyniUo,  we  give  the  following: :  to  mate  ,  i    ,  air,  t  <  ex  osc,  to  offend. 

Sup]  OS  ■  row.  that  a  Fedi  b.- p;i'-l  minis  er  should  urge  upcn  the  cele- 
brated infidel  Abner  KiieelancI,  the  important  duty  of  'believinir  the  Gos- 
pel of  Je^us  Christ  in  order  to  b?  saved;  and  Kneeland  should  reply, "1 
do  believe  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ."  The  Pedobaptistinqoires-  "how 
do  you  make  that  outl"  In  pieci^ely  the  •-ame  manner,  replies  Kneeland, 
"that  you  make  out  iliat  you  have  been  baptized.  I  find  that  to  expose  is 
one  of  ihe  definiiions  Ainsworih  gives  o\' committo,  ihe  last  L'lin  defini- 
tion ol  the-Greek  Pisthido.  Now  as  I  exjose  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ 
to  riilicule  and  show  its  absurdity,  it  (ollows  therefore  that  I  am  a  bdiever; 
for  that  is  the  import  of  the  term  Pi-teuo,  by  the  sa'ie  rule  of  interpreta- 
tiolrtliat  .sprinkle  is  the  import  ofb<ptizi..  Hence  if  you  baptize  persons 
■when  you  sprinkle  them,  by  pariiyof  reasoning  I  b  Here  tlie  Gospel  when 
'  I  ex  ose  it  to  ri  Jir ule."  Aeain,  by  this  rule  to  offend  is  to  believe.  Read 
Matt  IS:  6  by  subsii  uiin?  believe  (or  ofl^end,  you  will  find  bv  this 
principle  of  interpretation,  '■t*'at  ii  were  b^-t  er  for  m  n  that  a  millstor/e 
were  handed  about  his  neck,"  etc.,  than  to  believe  one  of  Christ's  disciples 
We  will  nexi  take  agapao. 

Agapao.     Di  ligo,  amo,  osculor. 

Now  oi^cuJor  means  to  kiss.  I;  follows  bv  this  rule  of  interpretation 
t  rat  as  Judas  ki  sed  JesusChrisi,  he  loved  him,  and  as  he  e.zp  sui  him,  by 
this  act,  to  ihe  malice  of  ttie  Jews  he  believed  him. 

We  will  finally  conclude  this  illu,s;ration  with  the  Greek  word 
aionws. 

AioNios.    Eternus. 

Eternus,  eternal,  continual,  perpetual,  jast'ng,  of  long  conlinuance,  du- 
ring life. 

UniVersalists  contend  that  a.ionios  when  applied  to  punishment  means 
during  Hie.  Now,  if  Pedobapiisis  are  justified  in  inierpreting  baptizo  to 
sprinlvle;  A>r the  same  reason  then,  Univcrsalists  who  follow  their  ex- 
ample ought  to  be  jnstified  in  rendering  sumi  5,  during  lile.  And  Pe- 
dobapiisis cannot,  consistently,  say  aughi  ai^amsi  them  lor  rendering  it 
thus,  so  long  as  they  inierprei  baptizn  to  sprinkle.  It  appears  evident  to 
me  that  if  we  were  lo  carry  out  this  principle  of  interpretation,  it  would 
not  only  destroy  the  philology  and  utility  of  our  language,  but  involve 
us  in  a  dilemma  similar  to  that  experienced  by  the  builders  of  Babel, 
when  their  language  was  confound^^d.  Hence  we  see  the  absolute  neces- 
sity of  adopting  the  purport  of  the  rule  oi  interpretation,  which  I  have 
before  mentioned,  viz :   Tliat  the  primary,  literd  impurt  if  au^rd  is alwmjs 


75 

toSetnkenr'st''etrwrnf,  unless  it  can  be  shewn  by  conclusive  evidence  Ihrd 
such  a  merming  could  not  p  ssib/u  h.-ve  been  intended  by  the  avMor.  Bv  this 
rule,  Pedub  iptisis  would  find  that  baptizo  means  to"  immerse  ;  and  Urti- 
versalists,  \.\\a.iaionios means  efernnl.  But  if  there  is  no  certain  evn'uenee 
that  'baptism  i-s  immersion,  then  there  i--  no  certain  evidence  that  aionios 
is  eternal  or  ev^e  iastino:,  or  that  pisleuo  is  to  believe,  or  that  a^apao  is  to 
love,  or  even  that  our  English  word  di.p  is  to  plunge  or  immerse. 

Pcdubaptist.—  \hn\\exy  willing,  iny  friend,  to  adtnit  your 
rule  of  inierpretation,  and  also  the  general  correctness  of  Vour 
illus'rwions  going  to  show  it,e  ridiculous  absurdity  of  pissinc^ 
a  witid  iliioiiirh  uor  or  two  languages,  and  then  taking  otie  of 
its  iTiosi  di^iani  lexi  oufraphical  definitions  as  it^  true  ar.d  iiierai 
import.  Bui  I  will  proceed  with  my  objections.  Fiof.  Stuart, 
as  1  iiiesiiine  you  are  aware,  represents  ihe  Baptists  as  "break- 
ing (he  cliurch  in  pieces  by  coniending  for  rites  and  forms.'' 
Is  not  this  a  faci.'' 

Baptist— W\\.  a  fact  that  the  Biptist  denomination  have 
broken  "ihe  church  in  pieces,  by  coniending  for  rites  and  forms-:'?" 
This  surely  is  a  grave  charge;  and  if  true,  they  are  certainly 
deserving  of  censure.  Let.  us  ex^imine  lliis  charge,  and  see 
wheiher  it  can  be  sustained.  Bjlh  denominations  mnmiain 
that  the  Lord's  Supper  bhoiili!  be  celebrated,  and  thai  too,  by 
bapized  persons,  and  those  believers:  but  neither  party  con- 
tends \h\„\  the  ordinance  is  not  celebrated,  tinless  the  bread  and 
wine  all!  partaken  of  m  a  reclining  posture.  Again,  Uoih  de- 
nominations contend  for  the  right  of  b.tp'ism.  The  Bap'ists, 
that  believers  are  the  only  fit  recipients  of  the  rite.  The  Pedo- 
baptists,  not  only  that  believers,  but  that  tiieir  inf\nt  offspring 
are  proper  subjects  of  ihi.s  ordinance;  though  the  Bible  and  the 
voice  of  history  are  silent  resp-ctmg  it  for  th<'  first  two  centuries. 
The  Bnptists  again  con'end  for  the  rite  of  imtnersion,  which  all 
ecclesia-tieal  historians  atfinn  wa.^  the  primitive  form,  'i'he 
PedobapisLs,  not  only  for  the  rite  of  imuiersion,  but  for  the  rile 
of  sprinkling,  and  the  rite  of  pouring,  in  direct  opposition,  as  we 
have  seen,  to  the  import  of  the  lerm,  and  thegeneral  practice  of 
the  chuich  for  fifteen  cenmnes.  Here  it  wdl  be  observed,  that 
the  Pedobaptists  con-end  for  at  least  three  rites  more  than  the 
Baptis's  ;  and  neither  of  them  found  in  the  church,  until  about 
the  commencement  of  the  third  century  Now,  wo  are  quite 
read\  to  admit  that  what  has  broken  the  church  in  pieces,  and 
caused  various  denominations,  has  been  the  the  "  contendino- 
for  rites  and  forms,"  not  instituted  by  Christ,  nor  found  m  :he 
Apostolic  and  primitive  churches.  On  whom  now  does  the 
heino'is  sin  of  "  breaking  the  church  in  pieces"  rest?  On  those 
who  obey  the  injunction,   "  earnestly  contend  for  the  faith  onca 


76 

delivered  to  the  saints,"  and  who  "  keep  the  ordinances  aa  they 

were  delivered?''  Or  on  those  who.  while  they  maintain  that 
the  Bible  is  a  suffir/ienf,  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  and  that  the 
rile  or  form  is  nonessential]  yex  tenaciously  adhere  to  a 
particular  rite,  which  the  most  learned  of  their  own  denomina- 
tion admit,  is  unauthorized  by  the  word  of  God?  You  will 
observe  here,  my  friend,  that  while  the  Baotists  contend  for 
"onu  Lord,  one  faith,  and  one  baptism,"  the  Pedobapiists  con- 
tend for  one  Lord,  two  faiths,  and  at  least  three  baptisms,  Who 
no^v  ''contend  for  rights  and  forms?''  Is  it  not  evident  that  if 
all  Christians  h-Kl  contended  for  "  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one 
bapiisiu,''  that  the  church  would  not  have  been  "  broken  in 
pieces?''    On  whom  then  rests  the  iruilt  of  these  divisions? 

Pedohaptist. — IVl y  dear  friend,  you  greatly  mistake  our  views, 
when  you  suppose  iliat  we  comend  for  "three  baptism?.''  We 
conienii  onlv  for  one  baptism,  anil  that  having  several  niodes, 
such  as  sprinkling,  pouring,  eic,  we  do  not  contend,  however, 
that  any  mode  is  essential.  But  you  contend  for  one  particular 
form  of  baptisiTi.  As  I  know  not  what  you  mean  by  our  cori- 
tending  for  "  two  friitlis  "  I  shoidd  like  to  hear  you  explain 
that. 

Bo.pt,ist. — We  contend  that  personal  failh  in  the  subject,  is  an  indispen- 
sable prerequisite  to  baptism.  You  contend  tor  this,  in  a  part'of  itiose 
\vh(jiTi  you  bap:,ize,  (sprinkle)  and  tlie  oih'rsyou  sprinkle  on  another 
faith,  i.  e.  the  laithoi  the  parent.  These  are  the  two  faiths  ofvvhich  we 
spoke. 

.  Asii  regards  modesof  bapti-ra,  my  brother,  youmu4  either  contend  for 
"  ab  iptism  that  has  ?j  mode,  or  a  baptism  that  is  mode  and  noih'ing  but 
mide,'  "or  a  baptism  that  has  many  mode'<."  If  for  the  first,  then  you 
must  contend  fora  nonentity;  since  there  can  be  '  no  external  rite,  with- 
out a  mode  of  existence  "  IC  for  the  second,  it  becomes  a  question  of 
im|ioriance  to  know  "what  that  mode  is;  for  without  that  mode  we  have 
no  b.iplism."  If  for  the  third,  i.e.  a  "  bipiism  that  has  many  modes," 
such  "as  washing,  sprinklinir,  pouring,  e'.c,  then  the  candidate  must  be 
immersed,  poured,  sprini<led,  washed,  etc.,  or  he  is  not  baptized.  Because 
sprinkling  is  only  one  mode  of  the  bipti.sm  which  has  many.  Hence  if 
■water  is  only  sprinkled  upon  him,  he  has  received  but  a"smanpaitof 
baptism."  Now,  unless  it  can  be  proved  "that  a  part,  and  a  sm  ill  part  is 
eqnn\  to  the  whole,  hi'-  hiptism  must  be  very  imperlectand  defective." 

Again,  your  denomin.ition  maintain,  not  only  that  sprinkling  is  one 
mode  of  baptism,  and  that  pouring  is  one  mode  of  baptism,  etc.  but  that 
sprinkling  is  actually  b  piism,  etc.  Now  if  sprinkling  is  one  mode  of 
bapti'^m,  and  at  the  same  time  is  baptism,  itself,  then  if  we  substitute 
sprinklins;  for  baptism,  we  have  a  sprinkling  mode  of  sprinkling  and 
a  jiouring  r/iodj  of  sprinkling,  and  an  immersion,  mode  ot  sprinkling, 
etc.  The  same  may  be  said  in  regard  to  pouring  and  immersion.  This* 
makes  consummate  nonsense.  Surely  no  one  will  contend  for  so  gross 
an  absurdity  as  this.  Hence  you  must  abandon  this  ground  as  un- 
tenable,   and  to  be  consistent,  you  must  either    maintain  thai  one  of 


77 

these  actions  alone  is  baptism,  or  that  all  of  them-  combined  are  bap- 
tism; or  that  each  one  of  these  different  thinsri  is  baptism. 

Pedbiptis'. —  Well,  my  friend,    if  I  cannot  sustain  ihe  position  that 
pouring,  sprinkling,  and    immeision    are  different    modes  of  baptism, 
then  I  will  take  the  ground  that  each  of  these  several  things    is  bap- 
tism. 

Baptist. — Then  you  maintain  that  each  of  the  several  different,  and 
specific  actions  of  pouring,  spiinkling,  immersion, etc.,  is  one  and  the 
same  thing.  Let  us  examine  :hi5  position.  That  immersion  is  bap- 
tism is  granted  by  all  the  world.  Now,  if  sprinkling  is  baptism,  and 
pouring  Is  baptism,  then  it  follows  that  sprinkling  is  immersiim,  and 
pourins:  is  immersion,  and  so  vice  versn.  i  or  accoiding  to  a  celebra- 
ted axiom,  things  thct  ire  equal  t  I  e  same  tH^ng^  are  cqu  I  tu  •  7ie  an<tl.er. 

Pedt  baptist.  -My  dear  biothcr,  fs  I  discover  nodii-creprrcy  or  error 
in  your    argument,  I  shall  not   attempt    to  refute  it;  but  will  proceed 
to  urge   an  argument  in  favor  of  infant  and  .'duit  sprinkliny.  on  which 
the  Pedcbaptisis  place  great  reii.ince.     This,  by  the  way,  would  have 
been  pre.serted  in  its  proper  plyce,  had  it  not  escaped  my  reenllection- 

Circiimtision,  I  presume  you  are  aware,  was  the  sea'  of  the  Abra- 
hamic  Covenani  under  ihe  former  economy  Hence  all  the  malt  chil- 
dren or  desccndsnis  of  the  b(  lieving  P.  iiiarch,  received  this  seal  or 
mark,  and  were  adraiiied  to  the  blessings  and  benefiis  of  that  covenrnt. 
So  in  ihe  church,  under  the  G  spel  dispensation,  which  is  a  ;oniinua- 
lion  uf  ihe  Jewish  church,  bnpiism  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  seal  ot  the  new 
covenant  i.e.  New  Toiameiit  blessings,  and  should  therefore  be  ap- 
plied lo  the  children  nf  believers.— Again,  as  baptism  is  a  sea],  "we  niight 
rai>e  an  arsumei  t  from  r  naloey  in  favor  of  sprinkling  or  pouring.  In 
sealing  a  letter, ihe  wax  is  applied  to  only  a  sma'l  part.  Hence  in  bap- 
tism the  water  should  be  applied  to  only  a  small  pan,  and  there  is  no- 
more  propriety  in  dipping  a  man  in  water,  than  there  is  in  dipping  a 
letter  in  sealing  wax. 

Baptist — The  position  ynw  have  taken  here  for  granted,  lliat 
the  Gospel  dispensation  ol  giace  is  a  contmuanon  of  the  Jew- 
ish, is  wholly  assuiipcl,  and  carrnol  be  pioved  We  have 
shown  that  biiptifiTi  did  not  come  in  the  rooir.  of  circmncision  ; 
it  lollows  of  course,  that  ii  rnnsi  belong-  to  a  new  and  disunct 
dispensation.  Many  Pedobaptisis  affirnn  that  circnincision  and 
baptism  ate  seals  of  ihe  covenant  of  grace  ;  but  the  irmh  is,  ihe 
Script  nres  no  where  teach  us  that  either  the  one  or  the  other  is 
the  seal  ol  any  covenant.  But  they  teach  us  that  the  sign  or 
mark  of  circutncisioD  which  Abraham  received,  was  to  him  a 
seal  of  the  righteousness  of  i  at  fn\\h,  lo/iich  he  had  before  he 
was  circumcised.*  Now,  the  oljecl  of  this  appears  to  have  been, 
to  show  that  he  was  to  be  the  spiritual  father  of  all  those  that 
believe,  and  of  no  others,  whether  cirrun)cised  or  not.  Hence 
circumcision  could  no'  have  been  a  seal  of  righteousness  to  his 
descendants,  for  they  were  cirriinicised  in  then  inf.incy.  Again 
this  is  the  only  place  in  the  Bible,  where  circumcision  is  called 
a  sign  or  seal  of  righteousness,  and  it  was  thai  to  Abraham  and 
to  no  one  else.  *Roin.  II. 


7S 


•^V  affirm  thai  baptism  is  a  seal  of  New  Testament  blessin<-^    is  an  iin 

:,,„  "^'^^'"^'e  New  Testament  account  ot  bapdsm,  there  is  not  -m  inti! 
uiat.on  a  hmt  or  even  any  allnsion  made  by  our  Lord  or  his  di  ciSe; 
about  baptism's  being  a  seal.  Still  the  Scrfpiur.s  are  not  s  Lnf  e'nert' 
ZV'lTh  J'*^^  ^l^'l'^'"^"  ofGod ''are  sealed  untoThel;u?RSS: 
fS  I   y^-  t?n  ','"''  '^r  ^'^■"  '"''^'^  "'"h  'he  Holy  Sp/r Uof  promi  e^" 

,7.     I     K      P.       *"    "^^  '•■''''^'  '^f  ^Of'  *'■'''  a  marked,  permanent  charac- 

Si:^-:;^/^Ei's:^"-^^^«-f  '^^^^"^'^  "^^^-^^ioS\i^^ 

child  a  ^-fn"  -^'r'^'^t'  ""'"■^''^  '^^^>^'  of  b.ptismre2ene.atcslhe 
rwal  CI  m^^h  f'^-^'i^''  bapti^u.al  service  in  thJ  Liiurgy  „f  the  Epis- 
sP-fl     .  ■      '^  \^  '^^^'^  ^^'^"'    '^  ™'?ht  wiih   proprieiy   be  styled  a 

how  c  n  ;  1'^        r'  ^''  "^f-  ^'  ^^P'-^'-'ed  to  ihe  soul  ofinlants  by  ihis  rite, 

vpf,f-?^i  "l'''?^'^-^''"''    "and,   ihe.efore,   p(,sierioriu  o, der  " 

In  nZ7nL''''T'^'''  "'"'  V  ^'  '^^  -^dminisle  ed  without  faith,  it  i.  both 
an  injurious  and  gross  profanation?'    (C  m.  in  Act.  ,- :  3C.  ) 

an^t'v'^f*^f1-  '^'^'/"^"'''•'"^  '"^^■^^''  "^  ^Pnnkimg,  drawn  from  the 
jSes^Kh^n  ^'''"■'"'^"'/'"''"■'■^  °"'>^  ^'^'y  "''•'t  '^'e  Bible  no  where 
VS  in  1  IdSnT  .f  •'  ''"'•  ^fl"^-'  ''"■■'^  ^'^«"'"^^'  ^■^"^- 1"  'he  ground. 
Aseal  isfm  °^  ""''  ^^^o»ld  remark. ha.  even  analogy  is  against  it. 
h'  be  ent?a  rV'T''-^'''°-K  ^'''''  circumcision  may-witi,  proprie- 

be "er.^.'eJTsear"'  ^''""^  '^''''  '  ^  ''^'''^  '^  "'^^-'^°'  ^^■'"'  '^">'  P^^'P"'^'^' 
i^e^o5fl;5?«>;.— Whether  infant  baptism  be  a  soal  or  rot    Pedo^ 
baptists  behf^vetbat    very   miich    is  ac-omplished    by    it,     Ex- 
penence,    thej  .«ay,  has  shown  that  I^e  ffreater  nunibei  of  those, 
that  become    the  subjects  of  divine  prace,  ap,l    unite    Avith    the 
Church,  wereiiaptized  m    infancy.     Hence,    thev  infer  that  God 
Wesses  this  rite,  therefore,  it   should  be   obsf-rved. 
^a;?^?.s^— My  friend,  we  think  under  the  ble.sin-  of  God   that 
the.se    persons'  conversion    is  to    be    nnpu'e,!,   noi^to  their  infant 
baptism,  but  to    their  religious  ed.icalion,    for  the  Bible    tpaches 
us  thai  men  aie  "sanctified  throiiirh  the  truth."    Jnhn  17-    17 
■19.     14:6.     Act..,  4:    12      Rom.  lo  :   9,  14,  17.     Thisviewof 
the  subject  IS  confirmed  by  the  fact,    that  experience  has  ^.oown 
that  the  greater  number  of  those  who  join   our  churches,   weie 
nenher  baptized  nor  rantized  in  infancy,  but,  nevertheless,  had 
pious   parents,  and    received    rejirrioiis  instructions  ttnd   moral 
Uaininar.    Now  on  this  reho^ious  cultivation  Watered  with  devouf, 
prayer,  God    has  promised  to    shed  the   glorious    beams   of  his 
lieaveniy    grace.     But   the  idea  that   the    mere   exiernal  rite  of 
raniisR)  does,  in  some  mysterious  manner,  shed  npjn  the  infant 
^iieart  the  holy   iniiuences  of  Christianity,  is  absurd.     And  the 


79 

annals  of"  the  church  show  conclusively  that  those  churches, 
which  do  not  practise  this  iinaulhonzeil  rite,  are  blessed  witlT.as 
great  accessions  and  as  much  .spiritual  prosperity,  when  ihey 
use  the  divinely  appointed  means,*  as  those  which  dopractist  it. 
Pedobaplist. — As  [  have  no  testimony  on  hand  to  invdidate 
your  argument,  I  will  pass  on  to  John's  B.ipiism.  To  which 
dispensation  do  you  asaiixn  that,  \Q.\hQ  Jewish,  or  Christian?  Do 
you  believe  that  John's  B.iptism  is  Christian  Baptism? 

Baptist — I  reprret  that  our  time  "^viU  not  allow  ine  to  go  into 
a  thorough  exammation  of  this  suliject  ;  but  it  is  not  necessary, 
as  it  cannot  materially  affect  I'he  argument  of  baptism,  whether 
John's  baptism  be  assigned  to  the  Jewish  or  Christian  dispensa- 
tion. The  argument  derived-  from  it  in  favor  of  immersion, 
remains  in  either  case  substantially  the  same. 

We  have  shown,  by  the  highest  Pedobaplist  authority,  that 
the  whole  churclv  practised  immersion  for  1300  years.  Can  \i 
beshoa-n  that  during  this  whole  period,  John's  baptism  or  Min- 
istry was  ever  called  in  qnestioii,  as  not  belonging  to  the 
Chiisiian  or  GosptM  di=;pensation? 

PedobxpUst. — As  John's  baptism  wa^;  instituted,  prior  to  the  abrogation 
oi  the  law  liy  the  death  uf  Chiist,  (which  act  introduced  the  Christian 
dispensation,)  therefore  it  must  belong  to  the  Jewish,  instead  of  tne 
Gospel  economy. 

Baptist. — My  friend,  it  is  evident  that  the  insiiUilions  of  the  Gospel, 
must  have  been  given  prioi'  to  Christ's  d'ath  or  they  could  not  havt- 
been  sealed  by  his  blood.  In  the  law,  you  know,  Moses  first  gave  the 
)n'ecepis,  then  lie  sprinkled  the  book  wii.-i  the  blood  ol  the  testament;  in 
like  manner  in  the  Gospel,  the  two  sacraments,  Baptism  and  the  Lord's 
Supper,  were  instiluied  prior  toLhe  death  of  Christ,  that  ihey  might  be 
sealed  wiih  the  hlood  of  the  New  Testament.  Again,  if  the  hypothesi.? 
be  adopted  that  the  Christian  dispensation  did  not  commence  till  the 
death  of  Christ,  it  throws  the  Lords  Supper  (which  was  instituted  before 
his  deatii)  back  into  the  old  di>pen.sa!ion,  and  annihilates  it,  as  a  Chris- 
tian ordinance,  and  vetoes  tlie  baptism  perfoimed  under  th.'  direct  au- 
thority and  immediate  notice  of  Christ.  John,  3:  2-2, '26.  4:  1,2.  Now 
as  Chiist  authorized  his  disciples  to  baptize  before  he  gave  his  final 
commission,  and  as  John's  baptism  and  theirs  appears  to  have  been  con- 
fined to  the  Jews,  Matt.  10:  5,  G,  therefore  the  commission  seems  not  to 
have  been  the  origin,  but  a  renewal  and  an  extension  of  the  command 
so  as  lo  embrace  all  nations. 

Pcdobaptkst. — But,  my  brother,  John  did  rot  baptize  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  ol  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  is  peculiar  to  the 
Gospel  dispensation. 

Baptist.— Row  do  you  know  that  he  did  not  baptize  in  the  name  of  the 
Trinityl  Have  you  any  evidence  in  the  Bible  to  sustain  this  position'? 
When  John  told  "  the  poople  that  they  should  believe  on  Him  that  should 
come  after  him,"  he  was  undoubtedly  pre  ching.     Now,  that  John  re- 

*  As  an  illustration  ot  this  fact,  we  need  only  point  to  the  present  flour- 
ishing condiiiou  of  the  Baptist  denominatioa  in  the  United  States,  num- 
tiering  over  6000  churches. 


60 

tei^ed  his  commission  from  God  to  baptize,  there  can  be  no  doubt,  and 
as  the  (ormnia  used  by  him,  is  not  recorded,  the  precise  terms  in  which 
it  was  couched  are  not  known  ;  therefore  we  have  no  proof  that  he  did 
not  baptize  in  the  name  of  the  Trini  y. 

Pedobaptist.—  B\il  if  John  baptized  in  the  named  the  Trinity,  is  it  not 
inefTably  absurd  lo  suppose  thai  in  the  account  of  this  religious  ceremony, 
so  esseniiala  feature  should  be  omittedl 

Baptist.— No  more  absurd,  my  brother,  than  that  the  same  omission 
should  occur  in  the  record  of  the  Apostles'  baptism. 

Pcdobaptist. — Have  we  any  evidence  that  the  Apostles  baptized  in  the 
name  of  the  Trinity  ;  and  if  so,  what  is  that  evidence"? 

Baptist. — Christ  has  made  the  doing  of  whatsoever  he  commands  atest 
ot  friendship  to  him.  And  as  the  com.mission  which  the  Apostles  receiv- 
ed, required  them  to  baptize  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  we  conclude  that 
they  could  nut  have  been  hi\  frienc's  and  di.sciples,  and  still  refuses  |to 
obey  iheir  commission  by  forsaKing  the  formula  which  it  enjoined. 

Pedobaptist. —  It  is  said,  Acts  l0:48.  8;  16,  that  they  were  baptized  "  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.'*  Now  if  this  be  the  case  how  could  they 
have  been  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Trinityl 

Baptist. — Now,  my  friend,  to  baptize  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  we  think 
implies  thcU  it  was  ilone  "  by  his  authority,  with  his  baptism,  and  unto 
his  religion  ;  (making  express  mention  ot  the  three  persons  ot  the  Trin- 
ity,) as  he  had  clearly  commanded  in  Matthew."  (See  Robinson's  Cal- 
mei,  An.  Biiptism.) 

Peddbaptut — My  dear  brother,  as  you  have  given  us  your  reasons  for 
not  assigning  John'  -  baptism  to  the  Jewish  dispensation,  it  would  De  grat- 
ifying to  me  now  to  hear  you  present  some  ot  your  more  prominent  rea- 
scms,  for  believing  that  John's  baptism  is  Gospel  baptism. 

Baptist. — 1.  It  is  evident  that  John's  baptism  did  not  belong  to  the 
Jewish  economy,  tor  if  it  had,  he  would  not  have  refused  to  baptize  the 
Pharisees  and  Sadducees,  who  were  of  the  seed  of  Abraham,  because  they 
brought  fortti  no  "  fruits  meet  for  repentance."  The  various  ablutions 
and  sprinklings  among  the  Jews,  were  generally  performed  before  enter- 
ing on  an  office,  or  after  some  pollution,  and  even  then  without  requiring 
any  evidences  of  repentance. 

2.  Had  John's  baptism  been  contained  in  the  Law  of  Moses,  the  Phar- 
isees would  have  known  it;  and  the  question  our  Savior  put  to  them, 
"  The  baptism  of  John  whence  is  it,  from  heaven,  or  ofmanl"  They, 
without  any  hesitation,  v/ould  liave  answered  from  heaven,  instead  of 
saying '' we  cannot  tell."  because  Moses  received  the  liw  from  heaven. 

3.  It  John's  baptism  differed  materially  from  Gospel  baptism,  it  would 
seem  that  our  Savior,  when  commissiuning  his  disciples,  would  have 
pointed  out  that  difference. 

4.  The  positive  declarations  of  Scripture  prove  that  it  belongs  to  the 
New  Testament  economy 

God  declares  by  his  prophet  Daniel  that  in  those  daj^s  he  will  "  set  up 
a  kingdom,"  Dan.  2;  44,  not  one  that  has  already  been  set  up.  Now  that 
this  kingdom,  spoken  of  by  Daniel,  i.  e.  the  Gospel  dispensation  of  grace 
commenced  with  the  preaching  of  John  the  Baptist,  is  as  certain  as  the 

*  It  was  the  opinion  ot  many  of  the  fathers  and  some  councils  that  the 
Apostles  sometimes  baptized  in  ih?  name  of  Jesus  only,  Ambrose  affirms 
*'  that  though  one  persm  only  of  the  Trinity  were  expressed,  the  baptism 
is  perfect.  For,"  adds  he,  "  whosoever  names  one  person  of  the  Trinity 
means  the  whole.'' 


81 

declarations  of  Scripture  can  make  it.  "  The  law  and  the  prophet,"  s&js 
our  Savior,  "  were  until  John,  since  that  lime  the  Kingdom  of  God  is 
preached,  and  every  man  presseih  into  it.''  Luke  16:  16.  SeealsoLuke 
17:  2i;  Matt.  21  :  31,  '3.— Mark  recognizes  ihe  ministry  ol  John,  as 
belonging  to  the  Gospel  dispensation.  "The  beginning  of  the  Gospel 
of  Jesus  Christ  the  Son  of  God,"'  Mark  I:  1.  Scott,  in  his  n  jies  on 
this  passage  says :  This  was  in  fact  the  beginning  ot  the  Gospel,  the 
introduction  of  the  New  Testament  disp»*nsation,  etc.  Dr.  Whitby 
says:  "  The  history  of  John  the  Baptist,  is  styled  ihe  beg  irmi7ig  of  the 
Gospel,  because  he  began  his  oftice  by  preaching  repentance,  as  the  prepa- 
ration to  receive  it  and  faith  in  tho  Messiah  as  the  subject  of  it."  Mat- 
thew Heni^y,  (in  loco :  )  "  The  3ospel  began  in  John  the  Baptist.  Peter 
begins  from  the  baptism  of  John.  ^  cts  1:22.  "In  John's  preaching 
and  Lrdinances,"  &c.,  "  there  was  ihe  begiiming  of  the  Gospel  [church. — 
See  also  Dr.  Prideas's  explanation  of  Daniel's  prophecy  of  the  t^evcn 
weeks.  Coni.eci.  2,  pp.  53,  54.  Dr.  Knapp,  tiie  learned  Lutheran  divine 
and  Prof  of|  Theolo-^y,  in  the  Universi  y  of  Hale,  says:  '•  If  we  regard 
the  authority  ol  Christ  and  hi^  disciples,  we  must  confess  that  the  baptism 
of  each  [i.  e.  of  Jesus  and  John]  w.is  one  and  the  same  inslilnte  ol  God 
himsell ;  and  that  the  design  of  each  in  administering  it  was  one,  ina.s- 
much  a.-  it  had  the  same  loakinsr  to  the  repentance  of  the  candidates  and 
their  faith  in  Christ,  whether  about  to  come  or  having  ci«me  alreadv." 
John  1:  .11.  :i:  27;  Malt.  11:  12;  Mark  1:4;  LukeS:  3;  Ads  19:  4." 
Dr.  W.  C.  Brownlee  of  New  Yoi  k  regards  "the  bapti.sm  of  John  and 
of  Christ"  the  same  in  their  divine  origin,  the  same  in  element,  [water] 
the  same  in  the  doctrine  of  (aitli  and  repentance,  Luke  3:  A,  the  i  nr; 
baptism,  Eph.  4:  5."  See  his  work  on  the  principles  of  Quakers,  pp.  225. 
With  this  agrees  the  testimony  of  Calvin,  (Calvin's  Insti.,  B.  4,  c.  i5.) — 
Again,  our  Savior  during  John's  imprisonment,  designates  the  ministry 
of  John  the  Baptist  as  ihe  beginning  of  the  Gospel  dispensation,  and 
places  the  mailer  beyond  all  contradiction,  by  saying:  "From  the  days 
of  John  the  Baptist  until  now,  ihe  kingdom  of  heaven  sufTereih  violence." 
But  on  ihe  supposition  that  John's  baptism  was  uoi  Christian  baptism,  and 
that  the  Gospel  dispensation  did  not  commence  till  after  Christ's  death, 
all  of  John's  and  Christ's  discipli'S,  the  twelve  apostles,  etc..  must  have 
been  re-bapiized,  either  c  n  the  day  of  Pentecost,  or  subscqu'-ntly,  before 
they  could  be  admitted  to  the  privi  eges  ol  the  Christian  church; — a  sup- 
position too  absurd  to  be  admitted  for  a  moment."  Where,  I  would  ask, 
is  there  to  be  found  on  the  sacred  record  an  instance  of  such  a  repetition 
of  bapiism? 

Pedobaptist.—\  am  happy  to  inform  you,  that  just  such  an  instance  is 
recorded  in  the  19th  chapter  of  the  Acts,  where  Paul  re-baptized  12  of 
John's  disciples. 

Baptist. — That  these  persons  were  re-baptized  by  Paul  is  not  certain- 
It  must  be  admitted  that  great  and  good  divines  are  divided  in  opinion  on 
this  subject.  Let  us  now  quote  and  examine  this  pas>age  as  lecordedby 
Luke  the  historian.  1.  "  And  it  came  to  pass,  that,  while  Apollos  wasat 
Corinth,  Paul  having  passed  through  the  upper  coasts  came  to  Ephesus  ; 
And  finding  certain  disciples,  2  He  said  unto  them,  have  ye  received  the 
Holy  Ghost  since  ye  believetH  And  they  said  unto  him,  we  have  not  so 
much  as  heard  whether  there  beany  Holy  Ghost.  3.  And  he  said  unto 
them  unto  what  then  were  ye  baptized?  And  they  said  uno  .Tol.n's  bap- 
tism. 4.  Then  said  Paul,  Jonn  verily  baptized  with  the  bapiism  of  re- 
pentance, saying  unto  the  people,  that  they  should  believe  on  him  which 
should  come  after  him,  that  is,  on  Christ  Jesus ;  and  when  they  heard  \^^ 


82 

Hiey  were  baptized  iia  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.*  And  when  Paul 
had  laid  hi.s  hands  on  them  the  tloly  Ghost  came  on  them  and  ihey  s^pake 
with  tongues  and  prophesied."  (Acts  19:  1  -6.)  Now  the  decision  of  this* 
que>iiun  depends  entirely  upon  ttie  interpretation  given  of  the  wurds  con-  , 
iained  in  the  fifth  verse.  "When  they  heard  this  they  were  baptized  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  These  wojds  are  understood  by  one  party 
as  the  language  oi  Paul,  and  by  the  other  of  Luke  the  historian.  We  re- 
gard this  as  a  part  of  Paul's  description  of  the  nature  and  design  of  John's 
baptism.  Owe  oppuneiUs  contend  that  it  is  the  language  ot  Luke  the 
historian.  This  last  interpretation  it  will  be  seen  relers  the  language  of 
(he  fifth  verse  to  the  twelve  disciples  instead-  of  to  the  people  mentioned 
in  the  fourth  verS:'.  Now  if  this  interpretation  is  true,  then  tnese  discr- 
ples  must  have  been  re-baptized  in  consequence  of  what  Paul  said  to 
iheminlhefourthver.se.  But  what,  i  ask,  is  there  in  Paul's  language 
calculated  to  convince  them  of  the  invalidity  of  their  baptism"?  He  who 
can  discover  any  thing  must  possess  a  keener  vision  than  we  can  boast. 
Now  1  his',  we  deem  an  iniupeiabie  cbjeciion  to  this  inierpreiation. — 
And  ;:gain,  if  there  were  any  p  rticiilar  difference  in  the  baptism  of  John 
and  Christ,  it  would  seem  that  Patil  on  this  occasion  was  imperiously 
called  upon  10  point  it  oiH.  Oi.ce  more,  you  will  observe  here  ihat  it  is 
not  said  that  Paul  b;ipiized  these  disciples  but  that  he  laid  his  hands  on 
them.  Finally,  we  are  not  alone  in  our  views  on  this  passage,  ior  it  is 
the  opinion  of  Calvin,  Beza,  Pool,  Robins  and  a  host  of  Pedobaplist  di- 
vines, that  these  disciples  were  not  re- be. pi i zed.  It  is  also  worthy  ol  re- 
mark, that  the  view  we  have  taken  of  the  b.iptism  of  ihese  disciples,  is 
confirmed  by  the  case  of  i\ptdlos.  "  This  man  was  instructed  in  the  way 
of  the  Lord  ;  and,  being  fervent  in  the  Sjiirit  he  spake  and  taught  dili- 
gently the  things  of  the  Lord,  knowing  only  the  baptism  of  John," — 
When  Piiscilla  and  Aquila  met  with  nim,  they  only  expounded  unto 
him  the  way  of  God  more  periectly;  as  we  learn  Irom  Acts  18:  25,  2G. 
It  is  evident  from  this  case,  in  connexion  with  the  fact  that  there  is  no 
account,  so  far  as  we  can  learn.from  Scripture,  of  anv  one  of  the  follow- 
ers of  Christ,  who  were  baptized  bv  John  or  the  Apostles,  prior  to  the 
giving  of  the  final  commission,  that  was  afterwards  re-baptized.  Hence 
we  conclude  that  John's  baptism  was  essentially  Christian  baptism;  and. 
all  that  could  afterwards  be  necessary,  wa.s  to  teach  them  the  way  of  the 
Lord  more  perfectly. 

But,  were  we  to  admit  the  interpretation  that  these  disciples  were  rer 
baptized,  it  is  altogether  probable  as  die  transaction  occurred  more  than 
twenty  years  after  John's  death,  and  as  these  disciples  "resided  nearly  a? 
thousand  miles  Jroin  the  scene  of  Joha's  labors,"  that  they  were  baptized 
by  some  one  tf  John's  disciples,  who  had  failed  to  direct  them  to  Christ, 
and  to  give  them  all  of  the  insiructi(m  which  John  was  accustomed  to 
communicate.t  Admitting  such  to  have  been  the  circumstances,  which 
are  altogether  probable,  (rf  this  interpretation  be  'rue,)  this  passage  does 
not  militate  at  all  against  the  validity  of  John's  biptiMn,t  nor  piovethat 
it  is  not  to  all  intents  and  purposes  Christian  b.iptism.  The  Penny  Cy- 
clopedia says  :  "  The  meaning  ot  Christian  baptism  differed,  I  t:le,  il  at 
all,  from  the  baptism  of  John," 

'         .'J  .  ' 

*  Liierally,  "  And  hearing  it  (akousanies  de)  ttiey  \^erc  b.ipn/Lea,"  etc. 

■t  John  taught  his  hearers  that  there  was  a  Holy  Ghost.  Matt.  3:  IJ. 
And  yet  these  disciples  had  not  so  much  as  heard  ot  any  Holy  Ghost. — 
Hence  we  conclude  that  they  could  not  have  been  baptized  by  John. 

tSee  American  Bap.  Magazine  for  the  year  1825,. pp.  574.  Knappiii 
Scriptavarii  argumenti,  etc.    Vol.  Lp,  163-4. 


83 

Pedobaplist. — My  friend,'as  the  most  prominent  arguments  have  been 
urged  against  I  he  idea  that  Joha's  baptism  is  Christian  bapiism.  And 
as  this  view  o(  the  subject  cannot  materially  affect  the  argument  in  favor 
of  immersion,  I  will  waive  it,  and  present  an  objection  against  the  Bap- 
tist idea,  that  John's  bapiism  was  immersion  ;  which  is  thought  by  many 
Pedobaptists  as  unanswerable.  "  It  is  said  that '  Jerusalem,  and  all  Judea, 
and  all  the  region  round  about  Jordan,  went  out  and  were  baptized  of 
him  in  Jordan.'  Now  according  to  Josephus,  there  were  from  eight  to 
ten  millions  ol  people  in  these  countries.  Now  suppose  John  .  .  .  could 
endure  the  fatigue  to  work  8  hours  in  the  day,  and  baptize  one  jKrson  a 
minute,  it  would  take  him  from  45  to  5tj  years,  to  dip  all  these  multitudes." 
or  if  only  I  alf  ihai  number  it  would  take  him  half  that  time.  If  "one  quar- 
ter part  as  many,  it  would  lake  him  from  11  to  14  years.  In  fact,  it  would 
lake  him  rajre  than  five  years  to  dip  one  million  ;  and  John's  head  was 
cut  off  in  about  eighteen  monihs— great  part  of  which  time  he  spent  in 
prison.  Yet  the  Scriptures  do  say  positively,  that  all  the  people  in  all 
these  countries  were  actually  baptized  of  John  in  Jordan.  When  the 
Scriptures  say  all,  they  certainly  mean  at  least  the  larger  part." 

"Now  it  is  as  plain  as  day,  that  John  could  no  more  baptize  all  these 
people  by  dipping,  than  he  could  lift  the  world,  or  put  out  the  .sun  ! ! !  It 
is  a  palpable  absurdity  to  suppose  it." 

But  "  he  could  take  the  water  from  Jordan,  and  sprinkle  thousands  and 
thousands  in  a  day.  This  was  undoubtedly  the  way  he  baptized." — 
{Scripture  Directory  to  Baptism,  pp.  13,  14.] 

Baptist. — "  Thi.s  argument,  my  friend,  so  specious  and  plausible,  is 
Irequently  advanced  with  such  an  air  of  confidence  and 'riumnh,  as  al- 
most to  silence  the  opponent  whom  it  fails  to  convince.  It  is  nevertheless 
founded  in  a  misapprehension"  of  the  import  of  langugae  ai.d  is  therefore 
perfectly  fallacious.  It  proceeds  upon  the  assumption,  that  rantisni  is 
oaptism;  i.  e.  that  sprinkling  is  immersion  ;  (which  we  have  shown  could 
not  be  the  case,)  and  that  the  word  GZHiere  means  the  larger  part;  and, 
consequently,  that  John  baptized  in  less  than  9  months,  to  say  the  lea.st, 
the  larger  part  of  all  the  individuals,  comprised  in  the  whole  realm  of 
Israel.  Now  we  have  no  d  )ui)t,  that  we  shall  be  enabled  to  show,  that 
Johnb.iptized  a  much  less  number,  than  you  seem  disposed  to  make  out. 
It  is  true,  it  is  said,  there  "  went  out  to  him  Jerusalem,  and  all  Judea,  and 
all  the  region  round  about  Jordan  and  were  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan, 
confessing  their  sins."  But  it  is  plain  from  many  passages,  that  this  was 
a  very  common  and  popular  style  of  expression,  by  which  the  word  all 
imports  a  great  many.  (See  Phil.  2:  21.  John  4:  25,  29.)  We  are  ex- 
pressly told,  John  3 :  26,  thac  they  said  to  John  "  Rabbi,  he  that  was  with 
thee  beyond  Jordan  to  whom  thou  bearest  witness,  behold  the  same  baptiz- 
eth,  anil  «iZ  wiCTj  come  unto  him."  Now,  if  the  word  «/nn  these  passages 
is  to  be  taken  in  its  widest  sense,  then  John  baptized  allJttdca,  Jerusalem, 
etc.,  and  Jesus  Christ  baptized  all  men;  and  consequently  re- baptized  all 
of  John's  disciples.  But  did  Christ  re-baptize  John's  disciplesi  "If  he 
(lidnot,  then  the  people  were  not  all  baptized  of  John"  nor  of  Christ, — 
Again,  a  similai  mode  ofexpression  occurs  in  Luke  3:  2l.  "Nowwhen 
all  the  people  were  baptized,  it  came  to  pass  that  Jesus  also  being  baptized, 
and  praving,  the  heavens  were  opened,"  etc.  But  we  are  iuformed  that 
•■'alter  those  things  came  Jesus  and  his  disciples  into  the  land  of  Judea,  and 
there  hfc  tarried  with  them  and  baptized.  And  John  also  was  bap- 
tizing in  Enon  near  to  Salim,  because  there  was  vmich  water  there  : — and 
Jhey  came  and  were  baptized."  "  If  John  had  previously  baptized  all  the 
people,  then  both  he  and  the  disciples  of  Christ  who  still  conunued  to 
fcaptize,  must  be  considered  .A 'irt-ia;)iw<s.'"  (i.  e,  those  who  re-baptize.) 


34 

Again,  if  we  were  to  admit  that  John  baptized  the  "  larger  part"  of  the 
people  of  Israel,  then  Jesus  and  his  disciples  must  have  re-bapti^,ed  many, 
that  John  baptized;  or  else  it  cojld  not  have  been  true  "thai  Jesus  made 
and  baptized  mure  disciples  than  John."  (Though  Jesus  himself  bap- 
tized not,  but  his  disciples.)  Mattheiv  Hsnry,  (in  loco.)  ■'•  He,"  Christ, 
"made  and  baptized  more  disciples  t'lan  John;  not  only  more  than  John 
did  at  this  time,  but  at  any  time,"  and  yet  he  says  "  it  is  computed  that 
Christ  sta.d  in  Judea  about  six  months." 

3.  In  regard  to  John's  ministry  continuing  only  18  months,  I  think 
your  compulation  very  erroneous;  some  suppose  that  it  commenced,  A. 
D.,  26;  others  in  27  and  others  sail  in  28.  But  according  tn  the  learned 
bishop  Prideau.t  it  continued  three  years  and  a  half.  This  b?ing  the  case 
he  had  more  time  than  9  months  in  which  lo  baptize.  Now,  if  Jesus  bap- 
tized, in  about  six  months,  more  disciples  than  John,  in  the  CDUise  of  three 
years,  we  must  conclude  that  John  never  baptized,  or  even  rantized  such 
immense  multitudes  as  our  opponents  imagine. 

3.  It  is  evident  ft  om  Scripture,  that  John  was  very  cautious  in  the  re- 
ception of  disciples,  for  he  not  only  preached  repentance  lo  the  people,  but 
required  of  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  "  Iruiis  of  repentance."  And 
we  are  informed  by  Luke,  3:  7,  8,  that  John  made  this  same  demand  of 
'■  the  multitude  that  came  forth  to  be  baptized  of  him."  Now,  as  all  the 
persons  v,'hom  Johnh^ptized  coiifes-ed iAeir sins,  it  is  probable,  that  multi- 
tudes came  to  his  baptism,  to  whom  this  rite  was  never  administered. — 
Hence,  it  is  obvious,  from  the  whole  account  ot  John's  baptism,  that  those 
whom  lie  baptized,  gave  evidfuce  that  they  believed  his  messages  ;  and 
openly  professed  repentance  towards  God  and  faith  in  the  approaching 
Messiah.     Thus  the  tollowing  Pedobaptist  divines 

Dr.  Erskine.  "  John's  baptism  was  termed  the  baptism  of  repentance,  and 
baptism  to  lepent'.mce;  because  he  required  of  all,  whom  he  admitted  to 
baptism,  a  proti  ssion  of  repentance,  and  exhorted  them  to  sucha  conduct 
as  would  demonstrate  'heir  repentance  genuine." 

ScotT.  "  It  does  not  appear  that  any  but  adults  were  baptized  by  John. 
.  .  .  Adult  Jews,  professing  repentance  and  a  disposition  to  become  the 
Me.-siah's  subjects  were  the  only  yxr sons  whom  John  admitted  to  baptism. ' 
(Com.  Matt.  3  :  5,  G.)  Burkitt.  John's  bapiLsm  was  the  baptism  of  which 
infants  were  incapable.     Notes  on  Malt.  19:  13-15. 

■  Now,  it  John  was  thuy  cautious  in  the  reception  of  disciples,  and  did 
not  baptize  any,  til!  he  could  gain  evidence  of  their  repentance  and  faith 
in  the  Messiah,  it  is  evident  that  he  could  not  have  baptized  such  vast 
multitudes  as  many  Pedobaptists  suppose.  Again,  it  is  probable  that  he 
could  have  immersed  them,  as  fast  as  he  obtained  evidence  of  their  per- 
sonal faith.* 

♦German  Testament;  Matt.  3 :  1,  "In  those  days  came  Johannes 
Der  Tiiufer;'"  John  the  dipper. — The  same  text  in  the  Dutch  Testa- 
ment; "In  those  days  came  Jb/:nw?ie3  iJ?i /?oo;?er  ;"  John  the  dipper.  Again 
on  Matt.  3  :  5,  G  :  "Then  went  out  to  him  Jerusalem,  and  all  Judea,  &c., 
and  were  gcdoopt  in  de  Jourdaen  ;"  and  were  dipped  in  the  Jordan. — Acts, 
8:8;  "and  they  went  down  into  the  water,  both  Philip  and  the  Eunuch, 
and  hy  doopte  I  cm  ;"  and  he  dipped  him,  etc.  Confession  of  Helvbti.v 
(drawn  up  by  the  direction  of  Bucer  in  1536,  ten  years  before  the  death 
of  Luther)  says:  "Baptism  was  instituted  and  consecrated  by  God:  and 
the  first  baptized  was  John  who  dipped  Chriyt  in  the  water  of  Jordan." — 
Magdeburg  Centuriators.  "  The  Son  of  God  was  dipred  in  the  water  of 
Jordan,  by  the  hand  of  John  the  Baptist." — hi.  Pcdobap.  Exam.  Lightfoot 
AND  Adam  Ci.ark.     "  That  the  baptism  of  John  was  by  plunging  the  bodj 


86 

'  4.  It  is  an  undoubted  fact,  that  John  could  immerse  in  a  decent  manner 
a  thousand  adults,  in  as  short  a  time  as  he  could  sprinkle,  in  a  decent  man- 
ner, these  sa  lie  adults  and  iheir  fhildi  en. 

5.  Finally,  (though  Jesus  ba:itize  I  more  disciples  than  John,)  it  must 
be  admitted,  it  there  is  any  truth  in  Scripture,  that  the  great  m:iss  of  the 
Jewish  I  eople  still  adliered  to  the  Scribss  and  Pharisees,  w'o  rejected  the 
couusjI  of  God aoainst  I! emsclves,  and  were  not  baptized  either  by  John  or 
Christ. — John  infoims  us  that  Christ  "  came  wi'o  lis  own,"  "  To  the  Jew- 
ish nation  to  whom  he  had  been  so  ex  ressly  nroraised,"  etc. — Doddridge. 
"And  his  ov-ii,  received  him  not.  The  great  mass  of  the  people:  the 
Scribes  and  Pharisees  rejected  him.  A  few  in  his  life  time  received 
him,  and  miny  more  after  his  death."— Barne^  in  loco.  "  The  generality 
rejected  Him"  .  .  .  Yet  there  was  a  remnant  that  twned  him  Rom.  11 : 
7. — Henry  in  loco.  "  Israel  hath  7iol  o/jlaiacd,"  i.  e.  "  the  nation  at  large 
hath  not  ob'ained  salvation."— Dr.  Paiton.  See  Rom.  9  ;  37,  31,  33,  .  10, 
21,  etc.  Now  from  the  whole  tenor  of  these  passages,  "it  is  palpably  ab- 
surd to  sup,o-e"  that  John  bap;ized  more  than  a  mere  remnant  of 
these  people. 

Pidobxjlist. — My  brother,  I  am  constrained  to  admit,  that  you  have,  in 
your  reply,  completely  demolished  the  assumed  foundation,  on  which  my 
objection  or  argument  was  based,  vi?. :  that  the  word  aZi  must  mean  the 
greater  part.  Hence  the  argument  falls  and  cannot  therefore  militate 
against  the  idea,  that  John's  baptism  was,  necessarily,  any  thing  other 
than  immersion.  I  will  therefore  waive  this  subject,  and  proceed  to  no- 
tice the  b.iptism  of  our  Savior.  It  seems  to  be  a  prime,  and  prominent 
argument  with  your  denomination,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  ail  Christians  to 
imitate  llie  e.^amdeof  Christin  bapti  m,  by  going  down  into  the  water 
aadbeing  immersed.  Now  Iconceive  this  to  be  a  great  mistake,  which 
will  apncir  evident  if  we  take  into  view  the  object  of  Christ's  baptism. 
"  When  Christ  was  about  to  enter  upon  the  public  ministry  t(f  the  priest 
hood,  he  a  iplied  'for  baptism  to  a  priest  under  the  Jewish  law,'  in  order 
'  to  fulfil  all  righteousness,'  and  thus  '  render  obedience  to  the  ceremonial 
law,'  as  found  in  Num.  8  :  G,  7,  and  E.k.  30  :  49,  20."  Hence,  it  is  evi- 
dent that'MJhrisi's  ba  lism  was  designed  regularly  to  introduce  him  in- 
to his  priestly  office,  according  to  the  law  of  iVloses,  under  which  he  com- 
menced his  ministry,  and  which  it  behoved  him  to  fulfil."  Now  would 
it  be  consistent  for  us  to  go  down  into  the  water,  under  the  idea  of  follow- 
ing Christ  into  his  priestly  office'?  In  view  of  these  facts,  is  "  the  baptism 
of  Jesu-3  Christ  to  be  imitated  by  Christians'?" 

Baptist — You  hare  a.ssumed  as  fact  here,  what  cannot  be  proved,  and 
must  not  therefore  be  conceded,  viz  :  that  Christ  applied  to  a  priest  under 
the  Law,  for  baptism.     It  is  true  that  Christ  applied  to  John  for  baptism, 

(after  the  same  manner  as  the  washing  the  unelean  persons  w.is)  seems  to 
appear  from  those  thing'i  which  are  related  of  him  ;  namely,  that  he  bay.- 
tlzedin  J  rd'!n,\.\\?ii\\eh?i\i\\zeA  in  En'iv,  because  there  was  much  loater 
t'lere,^'  cf-c.  {In  A.  Clirk's  C/mmxniary,  at  the  end  of  Mark.)  Origin  re- 
marks "  that  the  four  Evangelists  say,  that  John  confessed  he  came  to 
baptize  in  w.\ter."  etc.  Dr.  J.  J.  Gurney,  a  distinguished  Friend,  states 
that — "the  baptism  practised  by  John  and  by  the  Apostles"  was  an  "  im- 
mersion in  water." — Obscrv.  on  the  Pecul.  of  Fr' ends.  pp.  61.  Mosheim  tes- 
tifies substamially  to  the  fame  fact. — EccL  Hist.  Cent.  1.,  Pari  I.  See 
Campbell's  Translation  of  the  four  Gospels,  Matt.  3:  16.  Also  Dod- 
dridge, in  loco.  IMacknighl's  Apostol.  Epis.  Note  on  Rom.  6:  4.  Manj 
others  might  be  adduced  but  this  will  suffice. 


86 

but  where  is  there  any  evidence  on  record,  tliat  John  was  evci  consecra- 
ted a| priest!  Had  that  been  the  case,  would  he  not  have  been  Icnown 
to  the  Jewish  Priesthood;  and  would  they  have  sent  priests  and  Levites 
Irom  Jerusalem  to  demand  of  him  who  he  Avas  ;  and  would  he  have  an-' 
swered  them  as  he  didl  "  To  prove  that  Christ  was  baptized  to  fulfil  an 
existing  law  of  Moses,"  you  refer  us  to  Ex.  30:  19—21,  "  which  everv 
biblical  scholar  knows  to  rel'er  not  at  all  to  the  consecration  of  a  priest  lb 
the  sacerdotal  office,  but  merely  to  a  ceremony  to  be  performed  when  the 
priest  entered  the  tabernacle  to  nfier  sacrifice."  Again  for  the  manner  in 
which  this  is  performed  you  have  referred  us  to  Num.8:  6,7.  But  if 
you  will  examine  this  passage,  you  will  find  that  it  "does  not  relate  to  the 
];riests  but  to  the  Levites  alone."  It  would  sesm  that  every  man  acquaint- 
ed with  Jewish  Antiquities,  would  know  thac  there  exists  a  marked  "dis- 
tinction between  the  ceremonies  for  consecrating  a  priest,  and  those  for 
consecrating  a  I^evite." 

"Again:  No  Jewish  priest  was  ever  consecrated  by  baptism  meiely. — 
(See  Ex.  29  )  Lundius,  the  standard  critical  writer  on  tht  sacredjantiqui- 
ties  of  the  Jews,  teaches  thfit 'sacrifice  was  the  chief  part'  of  the  consecra- 
tion ;  and  that  washing  was  only  preparatory  and  subordinate.  All  He- 
brew antiquities  agree  in  saying  that  the  consecration  ot  the  priests  con- 
sisted ot  four  parts;  1.  washing;  2.  putting  on  sacerdotal  robes;  3.  unc- 
tion; 4.  sacrifice.  Can,  then,  any  of  these  acts  atone  constitute  a  sacer- 
dotal consecration!  Furthermore,  all  these  rites  must  h:  performed  in 
ike  tabernacle,  or  temple,  must  continue  seven  days,  and  candidates  must  not 
leave  the  tabernacle,  but  must  repeat  all  thoie  rites  seven  times,  that  is,  each 
of  the  seven  days.  We  cannot  ^top  to  prove  these  btalements  for  they  are 
not  disputed  points  among  the  learned.  For  the  honor  of  theological  sci- 
ence among  us,  we  sincere!/ hope  that  we  shall  never  again  be  told,  that 
baptism  in  the  Jordan,  away  from  the  temple,  without  the  robes  of  office, 
without  a  Jewish  unction,  without  any  sacrifice,  without  a  sevenfold  repe- 
tition lasting  seven  days,  is  a  consecration  to  the  sacerdotal  office  «s  re- 
quired by  the  late  of  Closes." 

"  So  iar  from  such  a  consecration  being  required  of  Christ  by  the  cere- 
monial law,  it  would  be  a  direct  violation  of  that  law.  No  one  conld  be  a 
priest,  unless  he  was  a  decendant  of  Aaron  in  the  male  line.  The  Mish- 
na,  and  all  the  critical  writers  on  this  subject,  show  that  a  critical  exam- 
ination was  to  be  made  of  the  lineage  of  each  priest,  and  that  his  descent 
could  not  be  taken  for  granted,  upon  mere  declaration,  but  must  be  demon- 
strated from  family  registers  :  see  Ezra  G  :  G2,  and  Nehem.  7  :  64."  Now 
Christ  did  not  belong  to  that  line  of  descendants,  who  alone  could  become 
priests,  but  was  of  the  tribe  of  Judab,  'of  which  tribe  Moses  spake  nothing 
concerning  priesthood.'  Heb.  7  :  14.— Christian  Review,  Vol.  3. 
.  It  will  not  be  pretended,  that  this  was  the  ground  of  John's  scruples  in 
baptizing  him,  for  (he  Gospels  tell  us,  that  his  scruples  were  of  an  entire- 
ly different  nature."  And,  since  it  is  evident  that  John  himself  was  never 
constituted  a  priest,  nothing  can  be  more  absurd  than  to  suppose  that  he 
administered  the  rite  of  baptism  to  Christ,  to  introduce  him  into  his  priest- 
ly oflice  according  to  the  law  of  Moses;  when  they  both  must  have  known 
by  that  very  law,  that  Christ  could  not.  on  pain  of  death,  approach  that 
sacred  office.  Num.3:  10  and  i:  51.  '  But  Paul  says  :  (Heb.  7.)  "Christ 
is  a  priest  after  th3  order  Melchisidec  and  not  after  the  order  of  Aaron." 
And  where  is  the  evidencethat  Melchisidec  was  initiated  into  the  priest- 
ly office  by  baptism.— The  apostle  proceeds  (v.  12,)  "For  the  priesthood 
being  changed,  there  was  made  of  necessity  a  change  also  of  the  law." — 
Hence,  Christ  was  not  "made  [or  constituted]  a  priest  after  the  law  of  a 
"arnal  commandment,  but  after  the  power  of  an  endless  life."  (v.  IG.)    It 


is  surprising  that  Pedobaptist  ministers,  standing  in  the  sacrel  deslc,  with 
the  Bible  in  their  hands,  will  make  such  unfounded  statements  as  v.e 
have  heard  on  this  subject. 

Is  it  a  tact,  that  Jesus  Christ  in  his  baptisrn  is  not  an  example  for  us  to 
follow?*  In  primitive  times,  Christ  required  his  disciples  to  follow  him. 
And  it  is  said  that  "they  forsook  all  and  followed  him."  The  apostles 
aflirm  positively  that  "they  received  from  the  Lord  what  they  delivered 
to  the  Churchei" — I  Cor. "II:  23.  15:  3.  They  commended  tho:se  that 
"  tcept  theordinances  as  they  were  delivered"  and  exhorted  all  to  be  fol- 
lowers of  them,  as  thev  were  of  Christ. —  I  Cor.  II:  1,2.  4:  16,17. — 
Phil.  3:  17.  Col  2:5,8,  11.  2  Thes.  2 :  15.-The  Baptists  desire  to 
i^hare  in  the  felicity  of  those  of  whom  it  will  one  day  be  said,  "These  are 
they  which  follow'the  Lamb  whithersoever  he  goet'h." 

Pedobaptist. — My  friend,  the  objection  urged  against  the  propriety  of 
imitating  the  example  of  Christ  in  baptism,  which  you  have  just  answer- 
ed, was  presented,  not  because  1  considered  it  a  valid  one,  but  because  my 
Pedobaptist  brethren  usually  deemed  it  such. — I  will  now  present  another 
argument,  on  which  they  place  great  stress.  Water  baptism  is  a  symbol 
of  spiritual  baptism.  This  being  the  case,  is  it  not  evident,  that  the  mode 
of  water  baptism  shoftld  correspond  to  the  mode  of  spiritual  baptism! — 
Now,  it  is  a  fact,  that  throughout  the  Bible,  the  mode  of  spiritual  baptism 
is  represented  under  ihe  figure  of  pouring  out.  Hence,  baptism  must  be 
pouring. — The  b  ipiism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  also  performed  by  pour- 
ing.— iigain  the  baptism  of  the  Israelites  "in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea" 
(I  Cor.  10:  1,2.)  was  pouring,  for  the  Psalmist  in  piving  an  account  of 
thisb:ipiism  say.s,  "the  clouds  poured  oat  water." — Psalm.  77  :  16-20. 

Baptist. — Aly  brother,  this  is  a  very  I'-pecious  theory  but  is  it  true  that 
baptism  is  pouring,  because  the  Holy  Spirit  is  said  to  be  poured  out?  if  so 
it  ought  by  no  means  to  b3  rejected.  Unfortunately,  if  this  position  taken 
by  you,  Pedobnptisis,  be  admitted,  it  proves  too  much,  for  without  any 
ceremony,  it  turns  out  of  your  churches  as  defective,  sprinkling,  immer- 
sion, etc.,  and  virtually  condemns  the  baptism  practised  by  the  Christian 
world  for  thirteen  ceaturies,  if  we  except  the  baptism  aflusion  oi  Novatiaii 
and  other  clinics,  respecting  the  validity  of  whose  baptism  there  was  so 
much  contention  in  the  Church. 

I  am  aware,  my  friend,  that  many  Pedobaplists  supj-ose  that  the  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  emblematical  of  Chrjs.iian  baptism  ;  but  this  position 
we  think  cannot  be  sustained  by  the  Bible,  for  the  spirit  of  inspiration 
never  ouce  aitempts  to  explain  or  lepresent  natural  things  by  presenting 
splritud,  but  contrarywise,  he  not unfrequently  explains  or  represents  ihe 
effects  ol  spiritual  things  by  an  exhibition  of  natural  things,  and  their  ef- 
fects. 

Again,  it  is  the  opinion  of  many,  that  regeneration  by  the  Spirit's  influ- 
ences, is  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Butiegeneralion  is  never  called 
in  the  Scriptures  by  this  name.  Hence  it  is  evident  that  the  baptism  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  must  bs  a  different  and  distinct  thing  from  regeneration. 
It  is  also  evident,  that  there  has  been  nothing  that  the  Oracles  ot  truth  call 
*  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit"'  since  the  day  of  Pentecost  or  at  least  the 
Apostolic  age.     Hence,  we  infer,  and  confidently  believe,  that  this  bap- 

♦  It  is  notorious  in  history,  that  from  the  days  of  Paul,  Rom.  6  :  4, — 
down  to  Ihe  fifteenth  century,  comparaiively  the  whole  Christian  world 
regarded  it  their  duty  to  imitate  the  example  of  Christ  in  baptism. 


8S 

tism  was  confined  to  the  age  of  miracles  ;  and  that  there  is  no  baptism  of 
the  Holv  Spirit  in  these  days.  Those  who  affirm  that  there  is,  we  call 
upon  to  prov^e  i'.* 

"  The  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  isa  fi2:urafive  expression,  and  expli- 
cable on  the  principle  of  immersion."  Now  it  must  be  obvious  to  every 
one,  that  the  literal  sense  of  a  word  must  control  its  figurative  application; 
and  we  have  ascertained  the  literal  meaning  of  baptism  to  be  immersion, 
and  that  too,  by  ihe  most  learned  jury,  we  could  erapannel  Irom  the  Pedo- 
baptist  world.  No  man  in  the  first  15  or  16  centuries, 'ever  dreamed  or 
suspected  that  this  Greek  word  had  any  other  meaning;  and  even  the 
Greeks  at  this  present  day  remain  ignorant  of  it.  Hence  the  baptism  of 
the  Spirit,  must  have  reference  to  immersion,  because  that  is  the  literal 
meaning  of  the  word. 

Finally,  my  Iriend,  the  idea  that  the  baptism  of  the  Israelites  was  pour- 
ing, because  the  Psalmist  says  the  clouds  poured  out  water,  is  palpably 
absurd.  For  the  clouds  which  the  Psalmist  mentions  could  not  have  been 
the  c'oud  which  Paul  says  the  Israelites  were  baptized  into,  in  connection 
with  the  Sea.  Now  to  suppose  that  this  cloud  poured  out  or  sprinkled 
water  upon  the  Israelites,  is  to  suppose  what  cannot  b3  true;  tor  in  that 
case,  they  could  not  have  ^^one  on  drii  ground  tlirouijh  the  midst  of  the  sea. — 
(See  Ex.  11:  IG,  22,  29.)  Again  they  could  not  have  been  sprinkled 
from  the  spray  of  the  sea  for  the  waters  were  congealed.  Ex.  15:  8. — 
Frol.  Stuart,  pp.336,  says:  "  The  suggestion  has  sometimes  been  made 
that  the  Israelites  were  sprinkled  by  the  cloud  and  by  the  ses;  and  this 
was  the  baptism  which  Paul  meant  to  designate.  But  the  cloud  on  this 
occasion  was  not  a  cloud  of  rain  ;  nor  Jo  we  find  any  intimation  thai  the 
waters  of  the  Red  Sea  sprinkled  the  children  of  Israel  at  this  time."  And 
it  is  evident  from  the  whole  account  that  no  water  touched  them.  Hence 
we  conclude  that  this  was  a  figurative  baptism.    And  we  cannot  conceive 


*  John  predicted  that  Christ  "should  baptize  (e;?.)  in  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
Fire."  Now  it  is  obvious  from  the  account  given  of  this  baptism  in  Acts 
2  :  2,  3,  4,  t  lai  there  was  no  literal  sprinkling  or  pouring  out  of  the  Holi/ 
Ghost  and  Fire  upon  ihe 'p^op\e.  Tlie  figure  evidently  refers  to  an  m- 
mersion  as  it  represents  the  abundance  ol'the  gifts  and  influences  of  the 
Spirit.  We,  in  like  manner,  use  the  word  immerse.  When  a  man  has 
an  abundance  of  business  on  hand  we  say  lie  is  imracrscd  in  business.  Bap- 
tizo  as  clearly  implies  immer.sion  in  this  passage  as  in  any  othsr.  la 
precisely  this  sense  did  the  Greek  fathers  understand  it ;  and  they  cer- 
tainly could  not  have  mistaken  its  literal  impoit.  Tiieophylact,  in  his 
exposition  of  this  passage.  Matt.  3:  11,  says:  "That  is,  he  shall  inundate 
you,  toutosli  kalakluseiv.mas,  abundantly  with  the  gifts  ol  the  Spirit.  Cy- 
ril, (who  was  for  twenty  years  pastor  of  the  church  at  Jerusalem)  about 
A.  D.  37i,  Cateches.  17":  8,  says:  "For  as  he  that  goes  down  into  the 
water  and  is  baptized,  is  surrounded  on  all  sides  by  the  water,  so  the  apos- 
tles were  totally  baptized  (immersed)  by  the  Spirit.  The  water  surrounds 
the  body  externally,  but  the  Spirit  incomprehensibly  baptizes  (immerses) 
the  soul  within."  Even  some  modern  Pedobiptists  who  practise  sprink- 
ling understand  it  in  this  sense.  Abp.  TiLLOTsoN  :  "/<  [the  sound  from 
hekven,  KcXs  2:  'i.'\  filled  nllt'ie  house.  This  is  that  which  our  Savior 
calls  baptizing  7cilh  the  Hcly  Gh< St.  So  that  they  who  sat  in  the  house 
were,  as  it  were,  immersed  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  they  who  were  buried 
with  water,  were  overwhelmed  and  covered  all  over  with  water,  which 
is  ihe  pro^yer  notion  ot  baptism."    So  C.4sai;bon,  and  others. 


89 


that  it  can  be  explained  on  any  o:her  principle  than  that  it  has  a  referenc* 
10  immer.sion.* 

Pedobaptis'. — Why  is  the  Spirii  said  to  be  poured  out  npcn  men,  it  the 
pouring  out  of  water  does  not  resemble  ill 

Baptist.-ThQ  Spirit  is  said  to  be  poured  out  not  because  there  is  any 
actual  pouring,  which  is  represented  by  louring  out  \\d.iex   in  baptism ; 
but  from  the  resemblance  between  the  effects  of  waier  poured  upon  cer- 
tain objects,  and  the  influence  or  operations  of  ihe  Spirit.     When  water 
is  poured   out  upon    vegetables  il    causes  them  to  grow  and  flourish.    So 
Avhen  God  communicates  of  his  spirii  to  men   "it  causes  them  to  spring 
up  as- willows  by  the  water  courses"—  'to  grow  in  grace,  and  in  the  knowl- 
edge of  our  Lord  and  Savior  Jesus  Christ,  Isa.  41:  3,4.     Mai. 3:  10,  11, 
ri.     Here  the  effects  tf  the  one  resemble  the  efi'ects  of  Ihe  other.     Again 
our  Savior  (-ompares  the  eftecis  of  the  spirit,  lo  the  eflbcts  produced  by  the 
wind,  John  3  :  8.     But  do  you  si'ppose,  my  brother,  that  we  can  represent 
the  mode  of  the  Spirit's  operations  by  baptisni'?     It  this  could  be  done,  the 
Spirit  must  be  liierally  poured  out;  and  if  the  Spirit  i.s  literally  poured 
oul,then  it  follows  as  a  consequence  that  God  must  be  material.     Hence 
it  is  obvious  that  this  whole  theory  is  founded  upon  the  absurd  hypothesis 
that  God  is  a  material  being — (or  we    can  form  no  conception   how  an 
immaterial  Omnipresent  Spirit  can  be  poured    out  upon  man.     Out  of 
what  can  he  be  poured?     Surely  out  of  nothing.     Hence  on  the  admission 
that  God  is  immaterial,  it  is  evident  that  this  theory  has  notliing  better  to 
rest  upon  than  "ihe  baseless  fabric  Of  a  vision."     Now  it  is  generally  ad- 
mitted that  God  is  an  immaterial  spirit.     V/ho  then   can  comprehend  the 
mode  of  His  existence,  or  the  mode  of  His  opcraiionsl     We  can  neithei 
comprehend  the  existence,  nor  operations  ol  our  own  spirit,  much  less  that 
of  the  Eternal  Spirii.  Hence,  no   one  can    know  the  mode  oi  the  Spirit's 


vi 


ig  lo  symbolize  or  repre  ent  the  Spirit  s  operations  by  water  baptism. 
Suppose,  however,  we  were  to  carry  out  this  theory  of  Pedbbaptisls, 
viz:  that  the  mode  cf  the  Spirit's  operations,  or  rather  that  the  words 
used  to  designate  its  conveyance  or  communication,  is  designed  to  teach 
us  the  mole  of  water  baptism.  Then  we  .-hould  have  modes  of  bapi.iGra 
in  abundance  ;  because  the  communication  of  the  spirit  is  indicated  by 

*  AitctiEisEi  'P  Newcomb  says,  "  They,"  the  Israelites,  "were  figurative- 
ly and  typically  baptized;  ihey  were  led  to  acknowledge  the  divine  mi.s- 
sion  of  Moses  through  these  miracles  expressive  of  baptism."    Bloom- 
riELD  adds,  '•  The  m:;terial  of  the  cloud  and  sea,  being  nothing  but  water, 
was  well  adapted  to  express  this  typical  representatian  of  baptism."  And 
Prof.  Stuart  adtniis  that  it  has  "  reference  to  the  idea  of  surrounding.'" 
WiTsius,  in  his  exposition,  inquires  '■  How  were  the  Israelites  baptiz- 
ed IN  THE  CLOUD,  and  IN  THE  SEA,  Seeing  they  were  neither  immersed  in  the 
sea,  nor  wetted  by  the  cloud'?"  and  replies,  "It  is  to  be  considered,  that 
the  apostle  here  uses  the  term  'baptism'  in  a  figurative  sense  ;  yet  there  is 
some  agreement  to  the  external  sign.     The  sea  is  water,  and  a  cloul  dif- 
fers but  little  Irom  water.     The  cloud  hung  over  their  heads,  and  the  sea 
surrounded  thern  on  each  side  ;  and  so  the  wnler  in  regard  to  those  that 
are  baptized."     jAnd  Br.  Whitby  adds:  "Their  going  into  the  sea  resem- 
bled the  ancient  rile  of  going  inio  the  water ;   and  their  coming  out  of  it, 
ihe  rising  up  out  of  it."     The  same  view  of  this  passage  is  substantially 
entertained  by  the  learned  Grotics,  Prof.  Venema,  Dr.  Hammond,  Pool's 
CoNTiNOATORs,  Gatakek,  Turretinus,  aud  many  others,  all  Pedobaplists. 


90 

many  other  words  besides  pouring.    Among  which  we  name  the  foUow- 


"Extend,"  Isa.  66 :  12.  C  "Breath  on,"  Jonn20  :  22.  (  "Fell  on,"  Acts  8:  44. 
'•feittin,?,"  Acts;/2:  3.  .?  "Catne,"  Acts  2:  2.  .?  "Giving,"  do  15:  8 
"Send  upon,"  L.  24:49  ^  "Shed  forth,"  Acts  2:  23.  ^  "Sealing,"  Eph.  1 :  13 

Now  if  the  mode  of  biptisni  should  be  pouriiv;^  because  the  Spirit  is 
.•;aid  to  be  poured  out,  then  extending  should  be  another  mode  for  the 
same  reason  ;  2  modes.  Sitiing,  another ;  ^^  modes.  Sending  upon,  ano- 
ther; 4  modes.  Breathing  on,  5.  Coining,  6.  Shedding  forth,  7.— 
Falling  on,  8.  Giving,  9.  Sealing,  10.  New,  how  can  water  baptism 
represent  each  of  these  10  modes'?  How  can  it  represent  breathing,  sit- 
ting, etc.  It  is  evident  from  these  passages,  that  God  intends  to  inform 
us  that  there  is  an  actual  communication  of  the  Spirit ;  and  not  the  mode 
of  that  Spirit's  operations  or  conveyance.  For  these  things  cannot  be 
symbolized  by  natural  things.  "There  is  no  likeness  to  a  Spirit,  nor  to 
the  mode  of  his  operations.  It  would  be  as  easy  to  make  a  likeness  of 
God  creating  the  world,  and  attempt  to  represent  by  a  picture  the  divine 
operations,  in  the  formation  of  matter,  as  to  represent  by  symbols  the 
manner  of  the  communication  of  the  Holy  Spirii,  and  his  operations  on 
the  soul.  If  Christians  were  not  infatuated  with  the  desire  oi  establish- 
ing a  favorite  s3-stem,  so  gross  conceptions  of  God  could  not  have  so  long 
f scaped  de'ection." 

Again,  my  friend,  Pedobaptists  "confound  things  that  are  different." 
Water  is pouicdinlo  a  bath  or  vessel  for  the  purpose  of  immersing  the 
feet  or  body  but  the  imvicrslon  is  not  the  pouring.  Again  if  baptism 
should  be  by  pouring,  why  do  not  Pedobaptist  ministers  say  I  pour  thee  in 
the  name,  etc.  But  can  persons  be  poured  like  liqa-dsl  Finally,  if  pour- 
ing be  baptism  why  did  not  the  Holy  Spirit  use  ths  word  cfieo  or  echeu 
.which  is  expressive  of  that  action. 

Pcdohaptis'.—My  dear  brother,  if  baptism  means  pouring,  sprinkling, 
etc.,  what  benefit  would  result  from  using  the  terms  you  mention?  But 
wliat  pleases  youl 

Baptist  —Why  to  hear  you  say  if  it  means  thus  and  so,  when  you  know 
very  well  that  it  means  no  such  ihing.  I  presume  you  are  aware,  that  it 
is  a  genera!  law  in  language,  that  if  wc  substitute  the  actual  meaning  of  a 
word  for  the  word,  ihat  it  will  make  good  sense.    For  example. 

The  people  congregate  at  half  past  lo  o'clock,  the  sermon  co/ftmeraces  at 
11  and  the  services  coududc  at  noo?i.  The  people  assemble  at  half  past 
10  o'clock,  the  sermon  beghis  at  11  and  the  services  wis?  al  midday. 

Let.us  now  test  the  words  pour  and  sprinkle.  If  baptism  is  pouring, 
then  pouring  is  baptism,  and  so  of  sprinkling.  It  is  a  very  common  ex- 
j)ression.  He  poured  or  sprinkled  water  on  or  itpon  the  man.  (Read 
Malt.  26:  7.  Rev.  IG  :  2,  3,  4.  Ezek.  36  :  25.)  It  is  perfectly  obvious  in 
this  case,  that  the  water  is  the  object  that  is  applied  to  the  man.  Now,  if 
the  actual  import  o!  baptism  \s pouring  or  sprink  ing,  then  read  the  sen- 
tence by  substituting  the  word  baptize^  for  jmir  or  sprnkle,  and  it  will 
make  good  sense.  '' H.Q  baptized  w alQv  u]:on\he  m&n."  This  would  be 
the  natural  construction.  The  absurdity  of  this  sentence  is  loo  obvious  to 
need  any  remark.  The  water  in  this  case  is  said  to  be  baptized.  Query 
how  do  you  baptize  (immerse)  water? 

Again  it  is  very  properly  said,  the  minister  baptized  the  candidate  (en) 
<?i  (or  eis)  into  water,  (See  Matt.  3  :  6.  Mark  1 :  5,  9.)  It  is  evident  in 
this  case,  that  the  candidate  was  the  object  applied,  ov put  into  the  loater. 
I.et  us  now  read  this  sentence  by  substituting  the  word  poured  and  sprin- 
kled for  baptized.    "  Tlie  minster  sprinkled,  or  poured  the  candidate  in 


91 

or  I  w/o  the  water."  Oscrvc  here  ihe  candidate  i?.  s^iiioht  sprinkkd  o\ 
poured  in  ox  into  the  water,  like  salt,  molasses,  honev  or  some  liquid. — 
(SeeEzek.21:  3.  John  13:  5.  Liilce  10:  31.)  Out ol  what  is  he  poured? 
Where  is  the  minister  competent  to  perform  this  work"?  What  can  be 
more  absu id  than  the  idea  ot  pouring  or  sprinkjinsr  men  inlo  water?— 
(Read  Rom,  G  :  3,  4,  by  substituting  pour  and  sprink'e  for  baptize — also 
I  Cor.  10:  2.     12:  13.  G.'l.  3:  27.  Eph.  4:  5.) 

Let  us  now  bring  the  words  immerse,  dip  and  plunge  to  this  test.  The 
minister  baptized  the  candidate  in  or  into  the  water.  By  substituting  the 
wovds  iinih-ersi;  dip,  etc.,  \o\' baptize  \l  will  read  thus.  The  minister  ?'7i- 
mcrsed,  dipped,  or  plunged  the  candidate  in  or  into  the  water.  This  makes 
good  sense,  and  does  not  murder  the  king's  English.  But  how  absurd  the 
constriictijin  oltlie  following  phrase.  I'he  \  inis'.er  baptized,  immersed, 
dipp'd,  plunged  or  suhvierged  water  vpon  the  candid-:ie.  Now,  if  pouring 
or  sprinkling  is  baptism,  this  phrase  is  actually  correct. — (Read  the  fol- 
lowing passages  of  Scripture  by  substituting  each  of  the  following  words, 
baptize,  immerse,  pluwie,  dip,  or  submerge  for  the  words  sprinkle  and  pour. 
Ex.9;  8.  Lev.  M:  7,  15,  Ifi,  18,  27.  Num.  S  :  7.  Jer.  18:  21.  Mic. 
1:  G.  Lara.  4:  1.  JMatt.  2G :  7.  Luke  10:  34.  Jojm  2:  i5.  8:  5. 
llev.  14:  10.  IG  :  2.)  Is  it  not  ostensibly  plain,  from  these  illustrations, 
that  neither  pouring,  nor  sprinkling,  is  baptism? 

Pedobaptist. — The  passages  you  refer  lo  I  will  read  as  you  request,  at 
my  leisure.  But  notwithstanding  your  striking  illustrations  still  you 
know  itiso_ften  said,  "he  was  poured,"  "he  was  sjirinkled.''  Again,  you 
know  it  is  said,  "I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water."  Is  it  not  evident  that 
water  in  ihisjilace  is  the  object  applied  lo  the  man,  and  not  man  lo  the 
water 

Baptist. — It  is  true,  we  sometimes  henrsuch  cxpre.^sions,  but  the  pecu- 
liar idiom  of  our  language  has  been  strangely  warped,  to  conform  the 
words  pour  and  sprinkle  lo  the  common  use  of  the  \.cvn\ baptize.  We  can 
speak  with  propriety  of  liquids  and  of  most  things  pulverized  or  capable 
ot  being  nje;;.sured  in  a  vessel,  being  p. Hired  ;  but  we  cannot  with  congru- 
ity  say  ilu\  of  a  stand,  table,  ship,  or  man.  Is  it  not  evident,  that  these 
objects  can  be  baptized,  i.  e.  imm''rs:d,  b'.U  that  they  cannot  be  sprinklcdor 
poured  unless  pulverized  or  converted  into  liquids.  Again,  is  it  not  plain 
that  tcaler  cannot  be  baptized,  but  that  it  can  be  poured  or  sprinkled.  No'-v 
it  must  be  perfectly  obvious  to  every  one,  that  there  is  such  a  marked  dif- 
ference between  what  can  be  done  and  what  ccmnotbe  done,  that  they  can- 
not be  one  and  the  same  thin?.* 

*  Let  us  illustrate  tiiis  po-ition  by  e-xamining  the  following  quotation 
from  Lev.  11  :  15,  IG,  in  which  Ihe  word;  pour,  dip  and  sprinkle  occur  jiii 
juxtapositicm.  "  And  the  priest  shall  lake  some  of  ihe  log  of  oil  and  {cpi- 
chcc'i)  pour  it  irtfo  the  palm  of  hisownlelt  hand:  And  the  priest  shall  {hap- 
sei)  dip  his  right  finger  in  the  oil  that  is  in  his  left  hand,  nnd  shall  {ranci) 
.i^/7'?ii7e  of  the  oil  with  his  finder  seven  times  before  the  Lord."  Now  if 
baptize  (from  irt/-7o  ori!rt/;//ro)  means  cither  pour  or  sprinkle,  then  the 
priest  sprinkled  or  poured  his  finger  in  the  oil.  And  in  order  to  do  that, 
he  must  first  have  pulverized  his  ifinger;  and  uhen  this  was  done,  and 
the  finger  poured  or  sprinkled  into  his  1  and,  it  is  evident  that  he  had  not 
the  finger  to  sprinkle  or  baptize  of  the  oil  seven  times  before  the  Lord. 
Hence  ihe  Lord  on  this  supposition  required  an  «As(jZttte  impossibility  ot 
him.  What  can  be  more  palpably  preposterous  than  this!  Is  it  not  evi- 
dent, that  each  of  these  words  has  a  delinite,  specific  import!  The  prin- 
ciple 3f  interpretation  adopted  by  some  Pedobaptists,  relative  to  the 
^ord  biptize,  if  carried  out  would  make  Ihe  Bible  a  senseless  jargon. 


92 

With  regard  lo  tile  expression  ''bapli/.e  you  iclt'i  water,"  I  have  shown 
ihat  the  Greek  preposition  e?i  translated  wit'i  (uiyht  lo  have  been  transla- 
ted in,  that  it  was  so  translated  in  itie  enrlicr  versions  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment.— It  is  so  rendered  by  Dr.  Campbell,  by  Prof.  Roninson,  by  Mr. 
Henry,  by  Tynda],  as  we  have  belore  noticed,  by  Montaniis  and  also  by 
Barnes.    (See  note,  on  M:)tt.  3 :  G.) 

The  e.'pre.ssions  ^'en  udaii,"  and  "-en  to  Jnurdanc"  occur  in  connection 
w!ih  baptizo,  ten  times  in  the  New  Teslament,  had  they  been  literally 
translated  as  they  0U!;ht  to  have  been  they  would  have  read  "i?i  water,'" 
etc.  Sprinkling  then  could  have  found  no  foolLold.  But  if  en  means 
vnth  as  you  contend  then  it  will  maki  good  senseb)''  placing  it  in  itss'.ead. 
Accordingto  i'ls  Matf.  says  that  the  people  were  "all  baptized  of  hitn 
[John]  ivith  Jordan,"  and  Mark  adds  ^^wil'i  the  river  Jordan."  Again 
John  was  baptizing  wit'i  Enon,"  etc. — "In  those  days  came  John  the  bip- 
tisl  p'eaching  wi-h  the  wilderness," — ''The  voice  of  one  crying  with 
the  \\'ilderness,''  etc.  Can  it  be  ihat  John  the  B.iptist,  baptized  wit :  Enon 
-  icith  Jordan — znA  ic  t'l  the  river  Jordan,  and  that  he  cr  cd  with,  and 
preached  w  lit  e  witdcrness.  No  one  can  fail  to  seethe  incongruity  of 
ihes.^  expressions. 

Pedobaptist. — My  friend,  iienudati  ought  to  have  been  translated  wit'i 
water,  vvhy  was  it  not  so  translated  in  our  present  English  version? 

Baptist. — My  brother,  you  doubllessly  recollect  the  account  we  gave  of 
the  first  introduction  of  sprinkling  into  England.  After  that,  very  many 
of  the  Bishops  of  the  English  Episcopal  Church,  adopted  Calvin's  substi- 
iiile  cf  a  subst'lvte,  and  in  1568  issued  a  translation  of  the  Bible,  ia  which 
they  made  several  perversions,  evidently  to  lavor  sprinkling,  and  among 
others  translated  en  with  when  connected  with  biptism,  in  every  instance 
but  three,  and  would  probably  have  done  it  in  those,  if  thev  could,  with- 
out their  perversions  appearing  too  glaring.  Our  present  English  transla- 
tion, prepared  by  the  command  of  Kin?  James,  was  issued  in  ISU.  The 
transla  crs  of  this  vei'sion  were  required  to  follow  the  Bishops'  Bible  and 
to  alter  it,  as  little  as  the  original  would  permit ;  and  "to  retain  the  old 
ecclesiasic  words."  The  word  church  was  not  to  be  translated  congre- 
gation, and  the  termbaptism  of  course  was  included.*  And  they  merely 
copied  the  Bishops'  translation  ot'cn,  vilt'i  and  all  tlieir  other  perversions, 
evidently  intended  to  favor  sprinkling. i-     But    noiwithsianding  all  ihese 

*  All  the  ancient  Eistern  versions  render  iha  Greek  word  bnptizo  in 
thesen>e  of  dipping -S'e'^  'iob.  Hist.  Bap.  Loud.,  1790.  All  of  the  valuable 
modern  Protestant  translations,  it  we  except  the  Vulgate,  and  the  other 
Wesiern  versions  modelled  after  i',  among  which  is  our  authorized  Eng- 
li-,h  version  vvhich  retains  the  Greek  Jerms.  '-But,  though  th'se  versions 
forsake  thetrack  of  the  Oriental  versions,  it  is  not,  as  is  well  knov/n,  be- 
cause the  translators  understood,  the  terms  in  another  sense.  To  say 
nothing"  of  con'.inental  scholars,  whe  her  Romani^ts  or  Protestants,  the 
fathers  of  the  Anglician  church  WiclirT,  Tynda',  Cranmer,  andc'lhers 
speak  plainly  on  this  subject,  and  so  to  this  day  does  the  book  of  common 
prayer,'  as  well  as  very  many  of  the  most  learned  Pedubnptisi  divin;s,  as 
we  have  seen, 

t  The  most  bold  and  glaring  perversion  in  our  tran.slation,  evidently 
made  to  sanction  sprinkling  as  baptism,  is  found  in  Isa.  5'3  :  15.  "  So 
shall  he  (^//eK??tffi2'o?ite?!)  .s7^?-z?i/t'Z2  many  nations,"  etc.  According  to  Ge- 
senius,  it  reads  in  the  Hebrew—"  So  shall  he  cau^e  many  nations  to  re- 
joice in  himself.  "--By  referring  to  this  pa.ssage  in  the  Septuagint  you 
will  find  that  the  wjrd  in  it,   translated    sprinkle,  is  Thaumazontai,  fr^jin 


93 

perversions  retailed  in  two  translations,  with  all  the  exertions  of  the 
Bishops,  it  was  nai  till  abaiit  1640,  nearly  a  century  from  the  commence- 
ment of  sprinkling  among  them,  b  ;fore  they  could  prevail  upon  the  Brit- 
ish Parliament  to  pass  a  law  enforcing  it. 

PedobaptisL—Yoar  remarks  respeciingthe  inconsistency  of  translating 
en  ■^^■^Y'^  appear  very  appropriate.  Indeed  I  see  no  goo:l  reason  why  this 
preposition  should  hi  translated  zw  in  the  phrases  "in  Jordrn" — 'Hnt'iz 
'd-ildeiness,"  and  ivil'i  in  ihe  phrases  ivi'k  w.ier — wilk  tin  Holy  G'.ost.  -  It 
appears  to  me  that  it  would  have^gJH  appropriate,  if  it  had  been  translated 
zft  water — 1»  the  Holy  Ghost ;  but  very  inappropriate,  if  it  had  been 
translated  with  the  Jordan,  etc.  Siill  I  am  very  far  from  admitting  that 
<■»  always  signifies  ift  for  frequently  it  signifies  a.'-,  ?(jjV/(,  ^//,  etc.  Bat  as 
you  have  referred  to  the  baptism  of  Chrisi  and  the  Eunuch,  and  placed  a 
considerable  stress  on  the  literal  import  of  the  Greek  preposition  eis  to 
prove  that  they  were  immersed,  and  that  immersion  only  is  baptism,  and 
passed  over  the  pi  eposiiion  c/i;  and  especially  «p),  1  would  call  your  at- 
tention to  this  subject  again.  You  know  ihat  the  literal  import  of  apo  is 
from  and  e's  is  very  frequently  rendered  to,  near,  or  unto. — Now  if  John 
and  Christ  came  only  (a/?<')/^o??^  the  vrater,  it  is  evident  that  they  went 
only  (cfs)i<i  it.  Hence"Philip  had  no  occasion  to  go  farther  wiih  the 
Ethiopian  nobleman  than  John  did  with  our  Savior,  in  order  to  the  ad- 
ministration of  baptism.  It  is  reasonable,  then,  to  understand  the  eis  and 
ilie  ek  ol  Acts  8:  3^,  39,  as  signifying  precisely  what  is  indicated  b}  the 
apo  of  Matt.  3:  16."  Now  if  e.s  signifies  to  in  this  baptism  of  the  Eunuch, 
then  c/.;  must  signify /'ro?ft;  for  "wher.ver  eis  and  fi' correspond  to  each 
other,"  says  Mr.  Ewing,  "the  extent  of  the  one  must  measure  the  extent, 
of  the  other.'-  Hence  Pedobaptisis  say  that  it  is  evident,  that  Christ  and 
John,  Philip  and  the  Eunuch  went  down  only  to  the  water,  to  attend  to 
the  administration  of  this  ordinance. 

Baptist. — My  friend,  (his  argument  is  built  upon  the  supposition  that 
•a^oisthe  only  key  that  will  unlock  the  meaning  of  the  prepositions  eis,  en, 
and  ek,  used  in  connection  with  the  verb  baptizo.  Now,  you  will 
not  deny  that  the  primary,  usuil  signification  of  the  preposition  en  is  in,  ek, 
out  of,  eis,  into,  and  of  the  verbia^/is^,  immerse,  tdencethe  primary,  usual 
import  of  these  three  prepositions  and  the  verb  are  decidedly  in  our  favor. 
Is  it  not  incredible  and  even  absurd  then,  to  suppose  that  th.e  Spirit  of  in- 
."^piration  would  use  these  three  prepositions,  and  the  verb  itself,  in  an  un- 
usual sense,  when  there  were  other  \7ords  belter  suited  to  his  purpose,  if 
he  did  not  design  to  express  iramersioni  Now,  what  can  be  more  prepos- 
terous, X\\:ir\\.o  attempt  to  set  aside  the  piimary,  literal  import  ol  the  verb 
baptizo,  and  the  prepositions  e?i,c?s,  and  e/i;,  used  in  connection  with  it, 
in  order  to  make  them  all  conform  to  the  usual  import  of  the  preposition 
apo  used  in  the  account  of  the  baptism  of  our  Saviour.  Now,  that  apo 
is  frequently  and  correctly  translated  out  of  is  evident  from  the  following 


TAaw?«f(:o  which  means  to  admire.  It  is  in  the  plural  number  agreeing 
vviihthe  noun  nations;  and  literally  rendered,  it  would  read, — "So  shall 
many  naticmsbe  nstonis\ed  or  surprized  at  him,  and  kings  shall  shut  their 
mouths  at  him,"  etc.  A  parallel  passage  occurs  in  Luke  9:  43.  John 
7:  21.  "I  have  done  (me  work  and  ye  all  {tliaumazeti)  marvel."  Sub- 
stitute sprinkle  for  marvel  in  this  passage.  The  same  verb  is  rendered 
marvel  in  John  3  :  7.  Acts  3  :  12.  Gal.  1 :  6.— The  word  T:aumazoha.s, 
not  the  most  distant  allusion  to  sprinkle;  and  the  world  might  be  safelj 
challenged,  to  produce  another  example  in  which  it  was  ever  so  transla- 
ted. 


94 

passages.  Matt.  14:29,  And  when  Peler  was  come  {apo)  aut  oj  \\xt 
ship,  etc.  Luke  8  ;  2,  Mary  called  Magdalene,  {apo)  out  of  whom  went 
seven  devils,  etc.  Read  also  verses  12,  38.  Luke  2:  4.  But,  if  we  ad- 
mit that  it  always  signifies//o??i  it  does  not  inilitate  against  immersion, 
it  is  very  common  in  speaking  of  a  baptismal  scene  lo  sa}^  ihey  came  up 
/"row  the  water,  but  thi-.  neither  proves  nor  implies  that. they  were  not 
previously  ^)^  the  water,  for  t'wi  is  generally  understood  though  not  ex- 
pressed. ^'Apo,"  says  Mr.  Carson,  "signifies  the  point  of  departure 
from  an  object,  but  that  point  may  be  in  any  part  of  the  object  to  which 
there  is  access.  If  the  object  be  impenetrable  it  must  be  irom  the  edge, 
hut  if  penclrab'e  the  departure  may  be  from  any  part  of  it.  If  a  fowl,  on 
the  opposite  side  of  the  river,  or  in  the  middle  of  it  take  wiags,  and  flying 
across  alighis  on  the  hill,  we  say  it  flew  from  the  river,  ju>t  the  same  as 
if  it  had  commenced  its  flight  un  this  side." — It  is  a  common  saying  that 
this  or  that  "merchant  has  just  come  or  returned //•y»i  New  York  with 
hew  goods."  JNovx',  though  strictly  speaking  this  expression  takes  him 
only  Irom  the  edge  of  the  city,  yet  its  general  import  is,  that  he  came  out 
of  the  city,  unless  he  states,  that  he  did  not  go  in'oW..  It  is  in  this  man- 
ner that  apo  is  sometimes  used  to  denote  out  of.  Now  apo  does  not  inva- 
riably indicate  or  signify /rc^/ft,  nor  does  it  determine  the  import  of  «'5  to 
mean  to  when  corresponding  to  it.  The  following  passage  will  illustrate 
this  fact.  "Then  went  the  devils  («;;o)//7)/rt  the  man,  and  entered  {eii)  to 
or  near  i\\e  swine.''  Luke  8 :  33.  Bui  what  did  they  en'er?  Nothing 
surely,  unless  they  entered  {eis)  into  the  swine.  But  in  v.  30  it  is  said  the 
devils  entered  {cis)  Mo  the  man.  Now  instead  of  apo's  indicating  that 
vis  means/o  in  this  phrase  eis  requires  apo  to  mean  tutoj  or  out  from. — 
From  what  we  have  said,  it  is  evident  that  even  the  use  oi  apo  in  its  usual 
sense,  does  not  interfere  or  contradict  tht-  use  of  the  verb  baptizo  and  the 
prepositions  named,  in  iheir  literal  sense.  But  even  if  it  did  that,  it  would 
be  absitrdto  suppose  that  the  usual  import  oi  apo,  thrown  into  one  scale, 
would  outweigh  the  primary  import  of  baptiro  and  the  prepositions e?i, 
»^is and ca;  cast  into  the  other.  Now  as  e?s  generally  signifies  !»/o,  it  can 
not  invariably  signify  to;  hrnce  being  rndefinile,  it  cannot  require  ck,  which 
is  definile,  to  mean /ro?H,  for  the  indefinite  cannot  limit  the  definite.  But 
ek  always  meF,ns  out  of*  Hence  we  will  reverse  your  demonstration. 
'  Wherever  ck  and  eis  correspond  to  each  other  the  ex;ent  of  the  one  must 
measure  the  extent  of  the  other."  Hence  ase^'  signifies  out  of  in  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Eunuch,  ds  must  signify  into.  For  if  they  came  out  of  the  wa- 
ter, they  must  have  gone  into  it.  This  position  we  are  confident  cannot 
be  overthrown  ;  for  the  definite  in  this  case  must  limit  the  indefinite. 

My  brother,  by  adopting  the  expedient  ycu  have,  to  set  aside 
the  evidence  in  favor  of  immersion,  (derived  from  the  plain  obvious 
meaning  of  the  term  baptizo  and  three  oJ' the  prepositions  out  ofthe  four 
used  in  connection  with  it,)  you  have  adopted  and  sanctioned  a  rule  which 
if  carried  out  in  its  application,  by  the  enemies  of  the  Cross, 
would  overthrow  all  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Bible.  The  Uni- 
versalist  can  prove  by  it  thst  ''the  wicked  shall  go  away  only  (eis)  to  or 
»€(2r  everlasting  punishment,  but  nol  into  it. — The  Unitarian,  that  the 
Father  was  only  (en)  by  or  vnth  Christ,  but  not  in  him;  that  Christ  was 
only  (en)    by   ox  icith    the     Father  but    not    in    him.     John  14:   11. — 

•  Mr.  Carson  has  proved  this  very  conclusively  in  his  examination  of 
Ihc  examples  contained  in  Mr.  Ewing's  Appendix  alleged  lo  prove  that  eh 
sometimes  signifies/roOT  and  is  synonymous  with  ap<7,  Read  from  pag« 
213  to  226  of  his  treatise  on  Bap'. 


95 

The  Infidel,  that  Noah  and  his  family,  etc.,  only  entered  (e/s)  lo  or  near 
the  ark,  but  not  into  it — that  the  Israelites  and  the  Ef^ypiians  only  entered 
{eis)  in  or  near  the  P.ed  Sea  but  not  into  it,  etc. — that  Jonah  was  only 
thrown  (eis)  to  or  near  the  Sea,  but  not  inlu  it — that  Daniel  was  only  cast 
{eis]  to  or  near  the  lion's  den  but  not  into  it,  &c.  &c. 

Again,  as  the  translators  of  the  New  Testament  into  our  language 
were  Pedobaptists,  they  would  not  be  likely  to  translate  these  prepositions 
in  such  a  manner,  as  to  have  them  speak  decidedly  against  their  own 
practice,  unless  compelled  to  do  so  by  conscience  and  the  plain  obvious 
importof  the  original.  When,  therefore,  these  translators  inform  us  that 
John  baptized  in  the  river  Jordan— that  they  cnme  (epi)  to  the  water,  and 
went  down  (eis)  into  the  water,  and  atter  baptism,  came  up(ek)  out  f/the 
water,  etc.,  we  conclude  that  the  original  was  so  plain,  that  they  felt  com- 
pelled to  translate  it  thus. 

But,  my  friend,  as  a  further  illustration  of  the  incongruity  of  renderin<i- 
these  prepositions  by  the  definitions  you  assign  to  them,  let  us  read  the 
following  narrative,  Luke  8  :  29,  30—34.  Mark  5:  13.  "For  he  had 
commanded  the  unclean  Spirit  to  come  (apo)  from,  but  not  oiU  of  the 
man."  "  He  was  driven  of  the  devils  (c/5^ /o  or  near,  buc  not  into  the 
wilderness.  *  *  *  n-iany  devils  were  entered  (eis)  to  or  near,  but  nol  tnio 
him."  But  what  did  they  enter  and  come  from  or  out  pf\i  not  the  manl 
"  And  they  besought  him  that  he  would  not  command  them  to  ^o  out  (c/.^) 
to  or  ?(mr  the  deep.  And  then-  was  there  a  herd  of  many  swine  feeding 
{en)  at, by,  or  Kitk,  but  not  in  or  on  the  mountain  and  they  besought  hiin 
that  he  would  ,«ufler  them  to  enter  {eis)  toov  near,  but  not  into  the  swine. 
Then  went  the  devils  {apo)  from,  but  not  out  of  the  man,  and  entered  {eis) 
to  or  near,  but  not  into  the  swine  ;  and  they  (the  herd)  ran  violently  down 
a  steep  place  {eis)  to  or  near,  but  not  into  the  sea,  and  were  choked  (cfi)  to 
ov  near  the  sea,"  not  ai  it,  but  o)i  some  sand-bank.  What  can  be  more 
palpably  absurtl  than  this  construction. 

Finally,  to  show  you  that  Pedobaptists  generally  take  unwarranted  lib- 
erties in  rendering  these  Greek  particles,  I  would  refer  you  to  Prof. 
Valpy's  Greek  GramniHr,  in  which  he  defines  t!iem  at  some  length.  The 
following  examples  will  suffice.  "En,"  says  the  Prof,  "is  used  only 
with  verbs,  or  clauses,  indicative  of  rest,  as  the  Latin  in  withthe  ablative; 
Fiscn  t?  Theo  to  tclos  esti,  the  end  is  in  God. — E71  oiko,  at  home,  i.  e.  f?t 
the  house  ■,—encanto  egencto,  he  came  to  himself,  i.  e.  he  was  in  himself 
again  ; — en  Marathon,  i.  e.  in  the  plains  of  Marathon.  Take  also  cis 
as  cis  astu  elthen,  they  came  into  the  city  ; — ell'tcn  cis  tc-n  Ellada,  he  came 
to  Greece,  i.  e.  he  not  only  came  to  the  borders  but  penetrated  also  into 
the  country  itself: — humenosels  ApoUona,  a  hymn  to  Apollo,  i.  e.  a  hymn 
notslightly  touching  iipoii  but  entciing  into  the  praises  oi  Apollo. 

In  this  manner  the  learned  Prof  proceeds  till  he  adduces  seventeen  ex 
amples  in  which  en  means  //;,  and  fourteen,  in  which  cis  means  into  and 
nearly  every  example  is  comino-nly  rendered  ni  English,  li/,  ti,  irlth,  at, 
etc.,  showing  clearly  that  though  these  particles  are  frequently  rendered 
at,  tcith,  to,  near,  still  these  renderings  cannot  chliterate  the  obvious  fact 
that  their  primary  import  is  in  and  Inti ;  and  they  may  generally  be  re- 
solved into  that,  though  it  may  be  more  agrecab'e  with  our  idiom,  in  some 
instances,  to  employ  o:her  prepositions,*     But,  my  brother,  you  are  aware 

*Dr.  Samuel  Johnson  gives  20  definitions  to  our  English  preposition 
frcm,  supported  by  seventy  quotations,  and  4G  meaningsto  for  supported 
by  more  than  200  instances  of  actual  usage.  But  the  celebrated' Horn 
Took  explodes  the  Doctor's  metaphysics  and  shows  clearly  that  each  of 
:hese  prepositions  has  but  one  primary  meaning,  and  that  all  the  fancied 


96 

that  the  common  rule  of  interpretation  requires  that  the  primary  import 
of  these  particles  should  always  be  taken  when  the  construction  will  per- 
mit. Hence  from  the  plain  obvious  import  of  these  prepositions,  we  de- 
rive a  conclusive  argument  in  favor  of  immersion. 

Pedobaptist. — IVly  friend,  the  argument  and  illustrations  contained  in 
your  answer,  going  to  show  that  the  primary  import  of  three  of  the  prep- 
ositions out  of  the  four  used  in  connection  with  ihe  verb,  are  decidedly 
in  your  favor,  and  that  the  primary  import  ot  the  other  does  not  militate 
against  imm.ersion,  have  convinced  me  that  these  prepositions  can  render 
us  no  aid  in  this  controversy.  1  shall  not  therelore  attempt  a  reply. — 
But  as  you  have  hpretofcre  referred  to  Rom.  6:  4,  an i  Col.  2:  12,  to 
prove  that  baptism  is  compared  to  the  burial  of  Christ;  and  therelore  im- 
mersion must  be  the  exclusive  mode,  because  that  onlii  is  em.blematical  of 
a  burial,  1  should  like  to  hear  you  answer  the  Pedobaptist  views  of  this 
subject.  They  assert  that  "the  Scripture  no  tohere  relers  any  part  of  the 
inode  to  the  burial  of  Christ,  except  something  may  be  gathered  from  these 
passage?.  And  if  it  did,  immersion  cannot  have  any  possible  resem- 
blance to  the  burial  of  Christ,  for  he  was  not  covered  up  in  the  earth  but 
only  laid  in  a  sepulchre  ;  made  of  a  rock.  That  Christ  v/as  never  buried, 
js  plain  from  the  evangelist  Matt.  27:  59,  GO.  Again,  "  we  read,  Mark 
16:  1^  that  when  the  sabbath  was  past,  Mary  Magdalene  and  others  had 
brought  sweet  spices  that  they  might  come  and  anoint  him  to  prepare 
him  for  his  burial."  Now  they  "affirm  that  (strictly  speaking)  Christ 
was  never  buried  ai  all,"  he  was  only  laid  into  a  rock.  "Now  to  this, 
what  kind  of  resemblance  can  immersion  have"?     None  at  all."* 

Baptisl. — My  brother,  if  Pedobaptists  say  that  Mark  oi  any  of  the  Evan- 
.gelists  represent  "Mary  Magdalene  and  others  as  bringing  sweet  spices 
to  the  sepulchre  toanoint  Christ  to  preyiare  him  for  his  burial,"  I  know 
not  where  they  find  it.  (Such  persons  should  read  the  last  chapter 
in  Revela'ion.)  Read  John  19:39-42.  Mr.  Car.son  says  [p.  240]  that 
"  Titapto  applies  to  all  kinds  of  burial.  No  doubt,  originally,  in  all  coun- 
tries burial  was  by  digging  a  pit,  and  covering  the  dead  with  the  mould. 
But  when  repositories  were  built  for  the  dead,  or  were  scooped  out  of 
rocks,  the  same  word  was  still  used.  This,  in  fact,  is  the  case  with  our 
own  Avord  fr«n/."  "The  idea  that  is  common  to  all  Ijurying,  is  that  of 
covering  the  dead,  or  surrounding  them  witii  something  to  keep  them 
from  violation."  Hence  when  a  thing  is  completely  covered  it  is  said  to 
be  buried.  Hence  the  Shepherd,  when  his  sheep  is  covered  up  with  snow. 
says  that  they  are  buried.  And  when  a  house  falls  on  its  inhabitants 
or'other  objects,  we  say  they  are  buried  in  its  ruins,  or  when  a  vessel  and 
its  crew  sink,  we  say  they  are  buried  in  the  sea  or  ocean  ;  they  found  a 
watery  grave.  In  the  cZ«Si-!fs,  a  vessel  sinking  or  going  under  v.-ater  is 
said  to  be  baptized.  (See  Carson's  ireati.se,  pp.  93,94,95,  9ti.  Stuart, 
pp.  299,300.  Judd,  pp.  22,  24,  25,  154  to  159.)  You  doubtless  recollect 
that  we  have  before  leferred  to  the  fact  that  weapons  were  found  two 
hundred  3'ears  after  the  battle  o[  Oxchoinewu?,  baptized  m  the  earth  etc. 
(See  Judd,  p  41.)  Who,  my  friend,  can  read  these  passages  and  discover 
no  analogy  or  resemblance  between  an  imiiier$ion  and  a  burial?— "Bxii 
Jesus  Christ  was  buried,  as  many  others  were  buried.  (See  the  account 
given  by  Josephus,  of  Herod's  burying  Aristobulus.)     It  appears  by  the 


meanings  of  the  Doctor  are  resolvable  into  that  one.     In  likemannernear- 
ly  every  one  of  the  10  meanings  which  Mr.  Parkhuist  the  lexicographer 
aisigns  to  en  and  the  18  to  as  may  be  re.  olvcd  into  in  and  into. 
*  "  Scripture  Directory  to  Baptism,''  by  a  Layman,  pp.  37,  38. 


97 

account,  that  they  laid  him  in  a  magnificent  sepulchre,  on  a  bier  or  couch 
{/di7ie)  built  as  a  house  for  the  dead;  and  this  was  called  a  burial.  Now, 
if  Christ  (strictly  speaking)  was  not  buried,  then  Aristobulus  was  not. 

Let  us  now  look  at  the  representations  of  Scripture,  and  see  whether 
Ihey  harmonize  with  the  representations  of  some  modern  Pedobaptists  on 
this  subjeC.  For  it  should  be  remembered,  that  the  testimonies  we  have 
given,  show  concUisively  that  lor  16  or  17  centuries,  it  was  the  prevailing 
opinion  that  baptism  was  an  emblem,  or  representation  of  the  death,  burial, 
and  resurrection  of  Christ.  (See  Stuart,  pp.  358.  Christian  Review, 
Vol.  3,  pp.  99  to  105.)  "For  as  Jonas  was  three  days  and  three  nights  in 
the  whale's  belly ;  so  shall  the  Son  of  man  be  three  days  and  three  nights 
intheheartof  earlb.  Malt.  12 :  40.  Now,  if  this  reprcsentaiion  , was 
I'ulfilled,  it  was  fulfilled  by  his  laying  three  days  in  this  sepulchre,  which 
was  the  ''  />ea)t  of  the  earth."  It  is  usual  lor  a  ridge  of  rocks  to  have  earih 
on  the  top.  "  The  Savior  was  under  the  earth  here,  as  well  as  if  he  had 
been  buried  in  a  pit  at  the  bottom  of  the  valley."  A  Geologist  we  think 
will  not  call  this  statement  in  question.  "Again,  Christ's  being  buried  i.s 
taught  as  a  part  of  the  gospel."  Whoever  athrms  then  that  he  was  not, 
really  bulled  contradicts  and  questions  the  truth  of  the  Gospel.  See  Cor. 
15:  i- 4.  The  last  part  which  reads  thus;  "  For  I  declared  unto  you  first 
of  all,  that  which  I  also  received,  how  that  Christ  died  for  our  sins  ac- 
cording to  the  Scriplures;  and  that  he  was  buried,  and  that  he  rose  again 
the  third  day  according  to  the  Scriptures."  It  is  worthy  of  note  here, 
that  what  the  evangelist  calls  thnc  days  in  the  heart  of  the  earlk  is  called 
by  the  apostle  being  buried.  Now  it  must  be  admitted  that  there  is  a  like- 
ness bet  weenjihis  burying  and  immersion.  But  no  necessityV.xists  that  ihe 
likeness  should  regard  the  manner,  in  which  the  bady  is  covered  with 
water.  The  emblem  consists  in  the  actuai  state  of  the  body  as  being  cov- 
ered with  water.  So  the  likeness  to  the  resurrection,  is  to  be  seen,  not  in 
the  manner  the  body  is  taken  out  of  the  water,  but  in  the  rising  itself. 
'•  There  was  no  likeness  between  the  w-ay  of  killing  a  sacrifice  and  the 
manner  ot  Christ's  death".  There  was  no  likeness  between  the  manner 
in  which  Jonah  was  swallowed  by  the  whale,  and  again  thrown  out,  to 
the  way  in  which  Christ  was  carried  into  the  tomb,  and  in  which  he  came 
out  of  the  tomb  :  Yet  Jonah  in  the  whale's  belly,  was  an  emblem  of 
Christ  as  being  three  days  in  the  heart  of  the  earth."  The  same  might 
be  said  respecting  the  resemblance  of  a  loaf  of  bread  in  the  Lord's  Supper 
to  Christ's  body.  Now  as  the  body  of  our  Savior  in  the  Sepulchre  was 
encompassed  on  all  sides  and  covered  over  by  it,  so  the  bodies  ot  believ- 
ers, in  immersion  in  water  isencompassed  on  all  sides  and  covered  with 
Ihis  element.  Cyril,  of  Jerusalem,  A.  D.  374,  says  :  "You,  descending 
into  the  water,  and  being  buried  in  the  water,  as  Christ  i?i  the  Sepulchre, 
arise  to  newness  of  life.'"'  Basil  the  Great,  A.  D.  360,  says  :  "  How  shall 
we  accomplish  a  descent  into  the  gravel  By  baptism  iiaitating  the  bu- 
rial of  Christ."  Who  now  will  contend  that  there  is  no  likeness  in  bap- 
tism to  the  burial  of  Christ"? 

Pcdobuptist — 'T'lie  objection  which  you  have  so  triumphantly  answered, 
was  advanced  to  elicit  information,  and  not  because  1  deemed  it  a  valid 
or  weighty  one,  though  it  is  regarded  as  such,  by  many  of  my  brethren. 
I  presume  you  are  aware,  that  most  of  the  Pedobaptists  represent  your 
denomination  as  being  so  bigoted  and  sectarian  in  their  views  as  to  con- 
iend  lor  a  particular  mode  of  baptism,  which  is  the  mere  costume  or  non- 
essential part  of  religion.  This  characteristic  trait  in  your  denomina- 
tion, they  say,  was  strikingly  exemplified  in  the  schism  and  division  they 
made  in  the  American  Bible  Society. 

Bo2)tisi.—As  it  respects  modes  of  baptism,  my  brother;  I  have  said  ali  I 


93 

deem  requisite  on  that  point.  I  have  only  to  say  that  we  consider noihin? 
baptism,  short  of  immersion  ;  hence  we  contend  for  the  rite  itself  and  not 
for  the  manner  in  which  it  is  performed.  With  req-aid  to  the  allegation 
that  we  divided  the  American  Bible  Society,  in  our  zeal  tor  this  external 
non-essential  rite,  I  wuukl  remark  that  tli'e  Pedobaptists  are  the  last  per 
sons,  I  should  think,  that  would  bring  such  a  charge  as  this  against  us 
"  Those  who  live  in  glasshouses  should  not  throw  stones."  Now  fron 
the  organization  of  the  A.  B.  S.  up  to  the  hour,  "when  it  extinguished  th 
last  ray  of  our  hopes,"  by  passing  the  obnoxious  rescjlution  that  wcuh 
cause  us  to  violate  our  own  convictions  of  duty  to  GoJ,  and  to  the  million 
of  perishing  heathen,  or  else  banish  us  entirely  from  its  connection  ;  ve.- 
up  to  that  hour,  it  received  the  warm  sr.id  heartv  co-operation  of  the  Bap- 
tist denomination.  The  contributions  of  the  Baptists  to  this  society  have 
amounted  to  probably  more  than  one  hundred  thousand  dollars.* 
And  yet  the  Society  has  appropriated  less  than  29,000  dollars  to  aid 
the  translations  made  by  our  missionaries.  It  should  be  known  that  the 
Baptist  translators  have  not  altered  their  co-ursc;.  nor  have  their  versions 
undergone  any  change  as  it  regards  the  translation  of  the  word  baptizo. 
But  the  Pedobaptists  belonging  to  the  Society,  changed  their  course;  and 
altered  the  purport  of  their  constitution,  by  annexing  a  new  resolution  to 
it,  which  produced  the  schism  and  division  in  the  society  you  have  unjustly 
laid  to  the  charge  of  the  Baptists,  notwithstanding  all  their  remonstrances". 
The  main  object  of  this  measure  appears  to  have  been  to  banish  the  Bap- 
tist translations,  not  on  the  ground  that  they  were  unfaithful,  cr  that  the 
heathen  would  be  taught  by  them  Avhat  was  not  the  meaning  of  bapliza, 
but  because  this  word  and  its  cognates  were  faithfully  translated  by  a 
word  equivalent  to  immerse,  which  iheij  with  the  learned  world  admit',  is 
the  true  meaning  of  the  term.  Now,  my  friend,  when  we  reason  with 
these  persons  on  the  true,  literal  import  of  the  term  ;  and  ply  them  with 
arguments  they  find  themselves  unable  to  refute,  we  are  met  with  the  re- 
ply, "well  it  will  make  no  difTerenee  as  it  is  an  external,  non-essential 
rite,  and  of  course  not  a  saving  ordinance ;"+  and  yet  these  same  persons 
make  it  50  cs^'c?!//rt?,  that  they  have  in  eflect  declared  by  the  resolution 
they  passed,  and  their  subsequent  conduct,  that  none  of  "the  funds  of  th^" 
American  Bible  Society  (in  which  the  Baptists  at  that  lime,  had  just  as 
equitable  a  right  as  themselves,  and  into  whose  treasury  they  had  cast 
5?5O,O0O  for  which  they  never  received  aught,)  shoidd  be  appropriated  to 
circulate  Baptist  translations;  and  consequently  that  the  millions  of  hea- 
then for  whom  these  translations  were  made,  may,  for  aught  they  will  do, 
perish  in  their  sins  and  pass  on  to  an  etemiiy  oi  endless  woe,  lor  the  want 
of  that  light  and  knov/ledge,  which  it  is  in  their  power  to  bestow,  but 
which  they  resolved  and  determined  to  withhold,  solely  on  the  ground 
that  this  little  non-csscntial  word  baptizo  is  correctly  translated  instead  of 
being  transferred,  wrapped  up  in  a  dead  language.? 

*  See  the  2d  annual  report  of  the  American  Foreign   Bible   Society,  p. 
Gl. 

Qce 


01. 

t  Now  it  is  worthy  of  remark  here,  that  the  pleading  the  uniraporlanc 
of  this  truth  by  Pedobaptists,  as  a  justification  of  their  non-compliancc- 
with  the  requirement  of  Christ,  (indicated  by  the  plain  specific  impoit  of 
the  termbaptizo,)  ij  a  virtual  acknowledgment  that  they  are  wrong  and  u-e 
are  right. 

t  The  language  of  the  learned  Dr.  Campbell  is  apposite  to  this  case. 
"Does  that  deserve  to  te  called  a  version,  which  conveys  neither  the  matter 
nor  the  manner  of  the  authorl  Not  the  matter,  because  an  unintelligible 
word  conveys  no  meaning  ;  not  the  manner,  because  what  the  author  said 


99 

Now  in  the  pertinent  language  of  Dr.  Johnson,  (in  his  letter  on  the 
translation  of  the  Scriptures  into  the  Gaelic  language,)  "  If  obedience  to 
the  uill  of  God  be  necessary  to  happiness,  and  knowledge  of  his  will  ne- 
cessary to  obedience,  how  can  he  that  withholds  this  knowledge  or  delays 
it  [on  such  a  pretext}  be  said  to  love  his  neighbor  as  himself!"  My 
broi her,  it  appears  to  me  that  the  Pedobaptists,  \rho  are  ignorant  of  the 
true  import  olbaptizo,  and  '■  voluntarily  or  wilfully  continue  thus  are 
guilly  of  all  the  crimes  which  that  ignorance  produces  ;  [be  they  divisions, 
schisms,  controversies,  etc.]  as,  to  him  that  extinguishes  the  tapers  of  a 
light  house,  might  be  justly  imputed  the  calamities  of  shipwrecks.'' 

Again,  you  are  well  aware  I  pre.^ume  that  the  A.  B.  Society  has  aided 
translations  in  which  the  most  important  words  have  been  so  rendered,  or 
mistranslated  as  to  teach  and  sanction  the  greatest  errors.  And  although 
it  refuses  to  aid  in  the  distribution  of  Baptist  translations,  still,  at  the  same 
tinie,  it  continues  to  circulate  versions  in  which  the  word  baylizo  is  ren- 
dered precisely  as  in  our  versions  by  a  word  signifyingto  dip  or  immerse, 
its  resolution  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  See  Mr.  Maclay's  ad- 
dress, pp.  12, 13. 

As  it  respects  the  charge  oibigotry  and  seclarianism,  which  is  so  often 
brought  against  the  Baptists  and  their  missionaries,  because  they  have 
translated  the  word  baptizo  by  a  word  signifying  to  immerse,  in  those  ver- 
sions of  the  Bible  which  they  have  given  the  heathen  nations  in  their  own 
tongue.  1  beg  leave  to  introduce,  as  a  complete  refutation  of  this  charge, 
the  language  of  the  late  learned  and  eminently  gifted  servant  of  the  British 
and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  Mr.  Greenfield,  who  some  years  since  in  his 
defence  of  the  Serampore  Baptist  translators,  says:  "  Bigotry,  that  is 
blind  zeal  and  prejudice,  the  Baptists  cannot  justly  be  accused  of,  while 
they  have  the  pri//(i7ii-c  .sc?tsc  of  the  term,  and  the  rendering  of  so  many 
ancient  and  modern  translations,  as  the  foundation  upon  which  they  have 
grounded  their  version  ;  nor  can  they  consistently  be  charged  with  secta- 
rianism, while  they  are  lound  in  company  with  the  churches  of  Syria, 
Arabia,  Ethiopia,  Egypt,  Germany,  Holland,  Sweden,  Denmark  and  oth- 
ers, together  wi'.h  the  church  of  England  itself.  If  they  be  bigots  I  know 
not  what  name  the  advocates  of  pouring  or  ofsprinlding,  who  have7i<J5McA 
basis  to  rest  on,  merit ;  and  if  theirs  be  a  sect^  it  must  be  con.fe3sed  to  be  a 
very  ancient,  and  very  extensive  onei 

"But  there  is  another  point  of  view,"  he  continues,  (and  while  he  writes 
these  memorable  words,  he  says,  as  a  preface  to  them,  '  I  wish  it  to  be 
distinctly  understood  that  I  am  neither  a  Baptist  nor  the  son  of  a  Baptist,') 
"  in  which  the  opponents  of  the  Serampore  missionaries  should  consider 
the  subject:  and  one  which  involves  the  most  important  consequences. 
Before  they  arraign  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  as  guilty  of  a 
gross  and  unpardonable  dereliction  of  duty  in  aiding  the  Serampore 
translators,  and  prefer  a  recommendation  for  them  to  withdraw  that  aid, 
they  should  b2  fully  prepared  to  carry  their  censure,  as  well  as  their  rec- 

simply  and  familiarly,  the  translator  says  scholastically  and  psdanti,ca!Jv. 
And  if  former  translators  have  from  superstition,  from  fear  of  giving  o'f^ 
fence,  or  from  any  other  motive,  been  induced  to  adopt  so  absurd  a  method,! 
shall  we  think  ourselves  obliged  to  imitate  them?  *  *  Shall  we  make 
lessaccountof  communicating  clearly  the  truths  revealed  by  the  Spirit, 
than  of  perpetuating  a  phraseology  which  contributes  to  the  advancement 
of  ignorance  and  of  an  implicit  deference  in  spiritual  matters  to  human 
authority!"  Such  would  be  the  effect  of  transfer!  ing  the  \\ovditaptizoz.x\iX 
ilscognales  in  heathen  languages  instead  of  translating  it. 


100 

omtnendation,  to  a  much  greater  extent.  In.  consistency,  if  that  aid  be 
■withdrawn  fr.nnthe  Seranipore  missionaries  because  they  have  rende-r- 
ed  ba}?tizo  to  immerse,  then  must  ii  also  be  withdrawn  from  the  churches 
of  Syria,  ol  Arabia,  of  Abyssinia,  of  Egypi,  of  Germany,  of  Holland,  of 
Dermark,  &c.;  and  the  venerable  Peshito  Syriac  version,  the  Arabic 
versions  of  the  Propaganda,  of  Sabat,  &c.;  the  Ethiopic,  the  Coptic,  and 
other  versions  must  all  be  suppressed.  If,  however,  tliey  are  not  thus 
prepared  to  carry  their  recommendation  to  its  fullest  extent,  then  must 
they  close  their  mouths  forever  against  their  Baptist  brethren,  ButshouUl 
a  faction  so  far  prevail  over  the  good  sense  of  the  committee,  and  the 
sound  and  catholic  principles  upon  which  the  Society  is  founded,  and 
which  has  ever  been  its  boast  and  glory,  as  well  as  the  most  powerful 
means  ot  its  extraordinary  success,  then  its  honors  will  be  laid  in  the  dust; 
and  from  a  splendid  temple  in  the  service  of  which  the  whole  Christian 
world  could  cordially  unite,  it  will  dwindle  into  a  coutem|:iible  edifice, 
dedicated  to  party  feelings,  motives,  and  views.  The  broad  basis  upon 
which  it  is  founded  is  its  strength  and  .security;  contract  this  within 
narrower  limits  and  it  falls  into  ruins."  The  remarks  of  Mr.  Greenfield 
are  applicable  Lo  the  proceedings,  of  the  American  Bible  Society. 

Pcdobaptist. — My  friend,  if  the  Baptists  have  the  ground  and  argument 
on  this  .subject  as  you  seem  to  intimate,  Avhy  are  the  Pedobaptistsso  much 
blessed  of  Godl 

Baptist. — I  answer,  why  has  Popery  with  all  its  glaring  .superstitions 
been  permitted  to  extend  itself  over  one  half  of  the  Christian  world? — 
Why  has  the  Mahommedan  religion  been  allowed  lo  spread  its  triumphs 
over  some  of  the  fairest  portions  of  the  globe!  "We  cannot  tell.  Why 
are  some  churches  holding  error  among  ourselves,  prospered?  If  you 
are  a  Presbyterian,  I  ask,  why  are  our  Methodist  brethien  favored  of 
God,  while  they  reject  the  important  doctrines  of  election,  and  the  ]  erse- 
verance  of  the  Saints'?  If  you  are  a  Methodist  I  inquire,  why  arc  Pres- 
byterians distinguished  by  the  favor  of  Heaven,  while  they  embrace  such 
pernicious  errors  as  election  and  the  Saints' perseverancel"  Similar  ques- 
tions equally  appropriate  might  be  raised  respecting  the  differences  of  the 
Episcopalian  and  Congregational  modes  of  church  government.  But  it 
is  not  our  province  to  answer  these  questions,  or  to  determine  how  great 
errors  churche3  may  hold  and  yet  be  prospered  of  God,  for  the  sake  of  the 
truth  they  wield  in  his  cause.  Your  denomination,  ray  friend,  I  presume 
you  will  find  are  blessed,  and  pro.sper^d,  in  proportion  to  their  real  piet:y 
and  activity  in  disseminating  those  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  Avhich  are  fun- 
damental to  salvation. 

But  the  proper  question  to  be  asked  here  is  not  "why  has  God  prosper- 
ed Pedobaptist  denominations?"  but  has  he  bles.'^-ed  them  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  rite  of  infant,  or  even  believer's  sprinkling  to  th3  same  ex- 
tern th;:t  he  has  the  Baptist  denomination,  in  the  observance  of  the  rite  of 
primitive  immersionl 

As  a  conclusive  answer  to  this  que.stion,  I  would  introduce  the  testimo- 
ny of  the  Rev.  L.  Porter  of  Lowel,  Mass.,  (given  in  the  Christian 
AVatchman,  June  21st,  1839,)  in  confirmation  of  the  remark  made  by  Pro-f. 
Jkwett,  in  his  work  on  Baptism,  "i'a<  God  has  frcquenl/ij  blessed  thisord-i- 
■nance  [believei's  baptism]  to  tic  conversion  of  soiils."  "This  idea,"  says 
he,  "admits  of  abundant  proof.  Hundreds  of  Christians  can  testify,  that 
their  first  permanent,  serious  impressions  were  obtained  at  the  river's  side. 
It  was  when  witnessing  the  baptism  of  an  only  sister,  by  the  late  beloved 
Prof.  Knowles,  then  pastor  of  the  Second  Baptist  Church  in  Boston,  that 
\ny  own  attention  was  attracted  to  the  subject  ol  religion. 


101 

'•  It  has  been  in)'  linppiness  to  baptize  almoit  every  nionth  fur  the  pa5.t 
four  years,  and  1  do  not  know  ot  one  instance  in  which  the  ordinance  has 
not  been  blessed  to  the  conviction  anl  conversion  of  one  or  more  individ- 
uals. No  dotibt  each  time  persons  have  been  seriously  affected,  and  per- 
haps converted  to  God,  whose  names  I  shall  not  know  until  the  judg- 
ment da/. 

"  I  liave  made  extensive  inquiries  f  mong  intelligent  Pednbaptist  min- 
isters and  members,  ol  various  denominations, -whether  they  ever  knew 
a  person  convened  to  God,  or  even  deeply  convicted  of  sin,  by  witness- 
ing the  sprinkling  of  a  child,  or  au  adult,  and  have  not  yet  learned  that 
such  a  case  ever  occuired.  Allow  me  to  ask,  through  ihe  Watchman, 
whether  any  individual,  pastor,  deacon  or  member,  can  citerny  wellau- 
theuiicaled  instance?  [No  answer  has  ever  been  given  to  this  question.] 
Cluery,  whicli  is  God's  ordinance,  the  one  he  blesses  by  his  Spirit,  or  the 
one  he  does  not"? 

"  I  have  baptized,  during  the  past  four  years,  upon  an  average,  one 
Pedobaptist  individual  each  montli,  more  than  half  being  members  of 
churches.  Last  S:.bbath  I  baptized  a  married  lady,  who  has  been  for 
several  years  connected  with  a  Congregational  church  in  this  city.  Also 
at  the  same  time  a  Congregational  clergyman.  Rev.  Tobias  Pinkham, 
for  the  last  three  years  pastor  of  a  Congregational  church  in  Dracut. — 
Mr.  Pinkham's  attention  to  this  subject  was  awakened  by  learning  that 
Prof  Jewett,  who  was  M'ith  him  at  Andover,  had  changed  iiis  senti- 
ments. Thus  the  '  Presbyterian  Elder,'  who  became  a  Baptist  at  Mariet- 
ta, has  been  blessed  to  the  conversion  of  two  Pedobaptist  ministers  already. 
Gluery.  Suppose  the  Elder  had  become  a  Baptist  in  sentiment,  but  had 
not  gone  forward  inbaptism,  would  brethren  Jewett  and  Pinkham  have 
been  baptized  at  this  time?  Uuery.  How  much  ^in  would  the  Elder 
been  guilty  ot  if  he  had  not  been  ba|)iized  at  the  time  he  was?  * 

"Judson  became  a  Baptist  by  studying  the  Bible  upon  that  point  to  meet 
the  Baptists  in  India.  So  did  Rice.  Merrill  became  a  Baptist  by  search- 
ing the  Bible  for  arguments  against  them,  so  did  Chapin  and  Grosvenor, 
and  Hackett,  and  Loomis,  and  Nolt,  and  Jewett,  and  Pinkiiam,  and  manij 
others.  Whet  will  be  the  resultof  other  candid,  and  pious,  and  intelligent 
Pedobaptists,  who  undertake  to  preach  against  the  sentiments  of  the  Bap- 
tistsl" 

Nor  is  it  by  any  means  true  as  the  objection  seems  to  assume,  that  the 
Baptists  have  not  been  visited  by  the  smiles  of  the  King  of  Zion.  With- 
out creed  or  catechism,  without  General  Assemblies,  or  other  high  judi- 
catories of  the  church,  without  archbishops  or  bishops,  Ihey  have  walked 
together  harmoniously,  uniting  with  each  other  ineflortsto  extend  Christ's 
Kingdom  till  they  embrace  in  their  congregations  a  larger  body  of  per- 
sons if  not  a  larger  number  of  believers  than  any  other  denomination  in 
iheUnited  States.  The  Baptists  were  the  pioneers  in  the  modern  mis- 
sionary enterprise.  The}'  M'ere  the  originators  of  the  Monthly  Concert 
of  Prayer,  and  of  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  the  parent  ofthjc 
American  Bible  Society.  They  have  also  taken  the  lead  in  thetiansla- 
iions  of  the  Bible.     "  Within  the  last  forty  years  their  missionaries  have 

♦Who  that  feels  it  his  duty  to  follow  the  example  and  command  of 
his  Savior  in  this  expressive  ordinance  knows  how  many  are  kept  back 
from  the  performance  of  this  duty  by  his  example,  and  again  how  many 
might  be  convicted  of  their  sins  and  converted  to  God  by  his  consci- 
encious  obedience  to  the  truth.  Goi  never  commands  a  man  to  do  any 
thing  which  it  is  either  wise  or  prulent  for  him  to  neglect  or  disobey. 


102 

(ranslr.i^ed  the  Bible  into  between  foriy  nnd  fifly  difierent  languages."— 
Jndicd  all  the  versions  they  have  made,  embrace  the  languages  and  dia- 
lec;s  spoken  by  mere  than  half  ofthe  heathen  n'orld.  To  them  in  <i  spe- 
cial rni.nner  are  we  indebted  lor  the  civil  and  religious  lib.erty  we  now 
enjoy. 

Pcdohnj)list. — My  brother,  how  do  you    sub-'tantiale  the  assGrtim  il,at 
we  are  "indebted  to  the  Baptists  lor  our  civil  and  religious  liberty?'' 

Boplist. —  They  were  the  people  that  first  advocated  these  sentiments. 
Itis  to  Roger  AVilliams,  the  founder  of  Rhode  Island  and  the  first  Baptist 
church  in  America,  tliat  we  turn  for  the  irrsl  dawnings  oi'tliat  Sun  of  civil 
r.nd  religious  freedom  whicii  iias  arisen  upon  our  Republic,  in  the  efful- 
gence of  his  glory.  Mr.  Banc!ofttlie  historian  says:  "He  was  tlie  first 
person  in  modem  Cliristendora  ta  assert  in  its  [ilenltude,  the  doctrine  of  the 
liberty  of  conscience,  tjie  eiiualily  of  opinions  before  the  law;  and  in  i^.s 
defence,  lie  was  the  harbinger  of  Milton,  the  precursor  and  superior  of 
Jeremy  Taylor.  For  Taylor  limited  his  toleration  to  a  few  Christian  sects; 
the  philanthropy  of  Williams  compassed  the  earth." — Nourished  by  sen- 
timents like  these,  sentiments  emblazoned  on  the  pages  ol  inspiration  and 
imbibed  from  the  sacred  volume,  he  disdained  alike  the  despotic  laws  of 
church  and  state,  and  the  frown  of  the  ecclssiastical  denunciation  of  liis 
Pedobaplist  brethren — he  left  the  soil  where  religious  liberty  was  not  per- 
mitted to  dwell,  and  sought  ahome  with  the  savage  and  infidel,  which  hij 
own  brethren,  who  had  fled  from  the  sword  of  per.'secution  in  England,  re- 
fused him.  It  was  in  these  trying  circumstances  that  he  broke  away  from 
the  shackles  of  religious  thraldom,  and  opened  up  an  asylum  in  the  wilder- 
ness, (which  he  then  called  Providence,)  for  the  persecuted  of  every  de- 
nomiination.  Here,  he  and  his  associates,  in  lG3t3,  established  a  code  of 
laws  "  in  which,"  says  Judge  Story,  "we  read  for  the  first  time,  since 
Christianity  ascended  the  throne  of  the  Coesars,  the  declaration  that  'con- 
science sliould  be  free,  and  men  should  not  be  punished  for  worshiping 
God,  in  the  way  they  were  persuaded  he  required.'  And  from  this  dec- 
laration ol  ptiiici|>les  Rhode  Island  has  never  departed.  These  peculiar 
sentiments  of  religious  liberty,  which  have  since  been  adopted  by  every 
state  in  the  Union,  the  Baptists  were  the  first  to  proclaim,  exemplify,  and 
defend.  Hence,  as  we  should  naturally  suppose,  they  choose  their 
own  religious  teachers,  whom  they  regard  as  their  "servants  for  good"  ac- 
knowledging no  foreign  jurisdiction,  and  no  man  their  master  but  Christ.^ 
These  distinguished  sentiments  and  principles  in  the  religious  system  of 
the  Baptists,  have  given  birth  and  vigor  to  the  Republican  habits,  institu- 
tions, and  government  of  our  country.* 

Pedubaptist.—B\.\\,  my  ineuA,?t\\fir  all  you  have  said  about  religiou|! 
liberiy,  etc.,  is  not  the  question  about  baptism  of  trifling  importanceT 

Baptist. — But  is  it  a  question  of  trifling  impoitance,  whether  men  shall 
lay  unhallowed  hands  on  an  ordinance  ol"  tlie  great  Head  of  the  Church 
and  profanely  strip  it  of  its  significance  and  its  teachings— whether  they 
shall  strike  down,  in  the  templcof  gospel  truth,  ihenoble  pillar  of  justifying 
faith -whether  they  shall  lift  from    the  sinner's  conscience,  a  weight  of 

♦  Some  years  previous  to  the  American  Revolution,  there  was  a  Baptist 
church  near  the  house  of  Mr.  Jeflerson  in  Virginia,  whose  monthly  meet- 
ings he  often  attended.  Being  asked  how  he  was  pleased  with  their 
church  government,  1  e  replied  that  "  it  had  struck  him  with  great  forcoj 
and  interested  him  very  much ;  that  he  considered  it  the  only  form  of  pure 
democracy  that  then  existed  in  the  world,  <'nd  had  concluded  that  it  would 
be  the  be^'plan,  of  gpyernnaent  for  the  Americarj  colonies.'' 


103 

personal  re.jponsibilit}',  laid  there  by  the  Lord  Jesus  himself— -whether 
they  shall  abrogate  a  law  of  the  King  of  Saints: — or  wheilier  they  shall 
keep  trie  ordinances,  as  they  have  been  delivered  in  the  Stainle  Book  oi 
Heaven,  revering  the  will  of  the  Sovereign,  and  observing  all  things 
whatsoever  he  hath  commanded]  ' 

Infant  baptism,  in  direct  opposition  to  the  whole  tenor  of  Scripture, 
'\\'hich  teaches  us  that  every  one  must  believe,  be  baptized  and  give  an 
accounl  of  himself  m\io,God,  declares  ihatthe  act  ofthei)arentin  theobserv- 
ance  of  this  rite,  liquidates  all  obli<,'ations  of  the  child%  even  if  he  become 
a  believer,  to  obey  the  command  of  Christ  in  the  ordinance  of  baptism — 
that  the  parent's  faith  shall  save  the  child!  A  celebrated  Ped(.baptist 
minister  in  Boston  says  that  a  Christian  parent  who  uses  the  ordinance  of 
infant  baptism  aright,  "  may  besure,  that  the  great  Shepherd  and  Bishop 
of  souls  has  written  the  name  of  that  child  before  him,  in  letters  which  his 
inlinite  foibcarance  and  mercy  will  long  keep  from  being  blotted  out, 
though  the  child  perversely  break  his  father's  covenant."  "  If  the  parents 
die  while  the  child  is  young,  the  remembrance  of  its  dedication  to  God, 
and  the  conlident  belief  that  it  was  received  into  his  covenant,  will  help 
them  to  look  at  it  Irom  tlie  dying  pillow   with  peace."* 

In  the  language  of  Prof.  Jewelt:  "Is  not  infant  baptism  as  exhibited  in 
■hese  extracts  manifestly  at  Avar  with  the  great  doctrine  of  justificatio.n 
evpaith'?  This  leaches,  that /«/"W,  one's  ouvi  failh,  not  another's, — faiih, 
not  ii-or/i-5,  either  his  own  or  another's  shall  save  a  man.  Shall  the  Bap- 
tists oe  charged  with  bigotry,  for  endeavoring  to  uphold  a  doctrine  on 
which  the  great  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  has  so  strenuously  insisted,  as 
lundamental  to  the  Christian  system." 

"I  need  say  nothing  of  the  fatal  influence  of  the  views  I  am  examin- 
ing on  multitudes  of  careless  adults,  M'ho  are  encouraged  in  a  life  of 
impenitence,  by  complacently  dwelling  on  the  covenant  made  with  God 
on  their  behalJ",  when  their  parents  presented  them  for  baptism.  From 
their  infiincy,  they  have  been  accustomed  to  rellect,  that  they  have  re- 
ceived '  the  seal  of  the  covenant,' have  been  'made  members  of  Christ,' 
and  'children  of  God,'  having  been  regenerated  with  the  Holy  Spirit.  Is 
it  strange,  that  such  personsshould  feel  themselves  .safe,  and  at  liberty 
to  continue  in  sin." 

PedobapList. — My  friend,  Pedobaptists  say  that  it  is  very  evident,  that 
"  Baptists  attach  too  much  importance  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism.'' 

Baptist. — "I  might  reply  that  on  some  occasions  Pedobaptists  attach 
too  ruUa  importance  to  it.  "When  individuals  are  led  to  inquire  respect- 
ing the  mindol'Christ,  do  not  even  ministers  endeavor  to  quiet  their  un- 
easiness, by  telling  Ihem,  'the  subject  i;  of  no  consequence'  — 'it  is  a  mere 
e.xternal  ceremony'— 'it  is  not  worthwhile  to  trouble  one's  self  about  it.' 
When  young  converts  are  seeking  to  know  the  will  of  their  Lord,  respect-, 
ing  theordinancesof  his  church,"do  not  their  .spiritual  guides  often  ply 
ihem  with  'dissuasives' from  invesiit^ationl  Do  not  parents  endeavor  to 
restrain  their  children  from  examination, becruse  it  is  pleasant  to  have  all 
the  children  in  the  same  church  with  the  parents'?  Are  there  not  num- 
bers who  will  not  li-ten  to  a  sermon  on  the  subjectl  And  do  not  even 
t'.eologicul  students,  while  pursuing  their  studies,  content  themselves  with 
a  paniahview  ol  the  matter,  forming  their  conclusions  without  reading 
a  single  Baptist  author]"  Do  not  many  other  Pedobaptists,  whose 
minds  liave  been  troubled,  by  reading  the  plain  declarations  of  Scrijjtura 
on  this  subject,  endeavor  to  remove  their  scruples  by  turning  away  from 

*  "  The  Baptized  Child,"  by  Nehemiah  Adams,  Boston,  pp.  36,  58. 


104 

the  Biblf,  and  every  thing  that  treats  ot  this  matter;  or  else  attempt  to 
quiet  their  consciences,  by  persuading  themselves  that  it  is  a  mere  vones- 
senlial  r:/c,  and  that  their  influence  or  usefulness  would  be  abridged,  if 
ihey  were  to  become  Baptists'!  Are  not  others  prevented  from  the  Scrip- 
tural observance  of  this  rite  by  being  told  that  immersion  is  "indecent,' 
or  at  least  "unsuUed  to  the  manners  of  a  polished  agel"  Have  not  tveu 
some  Pedobaplist  ministers  in  this  manner,  endeavored  to  hold  up  the 
primitive  rite  ofimmersion  enjoined  by  our  Savior  and  confessedly  prac- 
tised by  the  church  lor  centuiies  in  an  odious  light'?  Does  it  not  appear 
from  the?e  facts,  my  friend  that  many  Pedobapiists  attach  too  little  im- 
portance to  this  Gospel  ordinance"? 

Pcdobapiist. — My  brother,  ifyouthinkthat  Pedobaptists  attach  too  little 
importarce  to  tills  rite,  1  concltide  it  must  be,  because  you  lay  an  un- 
warrantable stress  upon  it.  I  suppose  the  Baptists  believe  it  lo  be  a  sa- 
ving ordinance. 

Baptist. — By  no  means;  so  far  are  we  from  regarding  it  as  such,  that 
we  believe  that  all  the  waters  of  Jordan  or  Lake  Erie,  cannot  wash  away 
sin — that  a  person  must  profess  faith  in  Christ  and  give  satisfactory  evi- 
dence that  he  has  been  trashed  a7id  cleansed  from  sin  by  t'u  atutiing  blood  of 
CV.rwi;  before  we  can  consider  him  in  the  liglit  of  Scripture,  an  eligible 
subject  for  this  rite.  This  in  fact  constitutes  one  of  the  most  di.stinguish- 
ing  traits  in  our  denominational  character.  Bui,  though  we  do  not  regard 
this  ordinance  essential  to  salvation,  yet  we  believe  (hat  the  scriptural  ob- 
servance of  it,  is  essential  to  obedience.  We  believe  the  rile,  though  an 
external  one,  is  full  of  rich  instruction  to  the  believer,  if  it  be  observed 
in  the  manner  enjoined  by  Christ.  "And  as  every  rite  must  have  a  form, 
if  we  do  not  preserve  the  form  we  do  not  prac:ise  the  rite.  Hence,  im- 
mersion is  essential  to  baptism.  Hence,  baptism  (immersion)  is  essen- 
tial to  obedience  to  Christ; — essential  to  the  highest  instruction  and  com- 
fort ot  believers; — essential  to  the  best  moral  impression  on  unbelievers; 
— essential  to  the  purily  and  stability  of  the  church  of  Christ." 

But,  my  friend,  as  we  ate  repeatedly  charged  with  laying  an  undue 
stress  on  baptism,  we  would  state  as  our  clear  conviction  that  if  the 
truth  M-ere  known,  it  would  be  seen  thai  it  is  the  Pedobaptists  themselves, 
who  lay  unauthorized  stress  upon  this  ordinance.  It  is  well  known  that 
pou?-iiig,  spri?i/dvng,  ai\d  infant  baptism,  a\\  had  their  fl?i'.:2;i,  (and  even 
existence  for  centuries)  in  "the  belief,  that  baptism  regenerated  the  soul, 
and  qualified  the  subject  for  admission  into  heaven.  Beli3ving  that  all 
whodied  unbaptized  were  irrevocably  lost,  for  those  on  sickbeds  who  were 
considered  in  imminent  danger,  and  immersion  consequently  deemed  im- 
practicable, they  first  invented  pouring  as  a  substitute  for  baptism  and  af- 
terwards sprinkling.  The  statements  of  Prof.  Stuart  and  Bp.  Smith  of 
Kentucky,  corrcburale  this  historical  fact.  Hence  we  perceivethe  impor- 
tance Pedobaptists  formerly  attached  to  this  ordinance.  Let  us  now  see 
what  importance  is  attached  to  it  by  modern  Pedobaptists. 

Mr.  Barnes,  a  Presbyterian,  in  his  Note  on  Mark,  10  :  IG.  "It  is  wor- 
Ihycf  remark,  that  Jesus  has  made  ba-ptisvi  of  so  much  importance.  He 
A\{\not  say,  indeed,  that  a  man  could  not  be  saved  without  baptism,  but 
he  has  strjngly  implied,  that  where  this  is  neglected,  l{nov:ing  it  to  be  a 
comviand  of  the  Saver,  it  endangers  the  salvation  of  ihe  soul.  FailhSir\& 
laplism  are  the  beginnings  ot  the  Christian  life:  the  one,  the  beginning 
of  piety  in  ihe  soul  -,  the  other,  of  its  manifestation  before  men,  or  of  a  pro- 
fession of  religion.*  And  no  man  can  tell  how  much  he  endangers  his 
eternal  interest  by  being  ashamed  of  Christ  before  men. 

*ls  the  baptism  of  an  infant  the  manifestation  bei'oie  men,  of  piety  in 
its  sou  11 


10§ 

Matthew  Henry,  a  Congregationalist  and  the  distiiiguislieJ  commen- 
tator. "  The'gospel  contain;;  not  only  a  doctrine,  but  a  covenant;  and  by 
baptism  ■\ve  are  brought  irJo  that  covenant.  Baptism  wrests  Ihc  keys  ol 
the  heart  out  of  the  hands  of  the  strong  man  armed,  that  the  possession 
may  be  surrendered  to  Him  whose  right  it  is.  *  *  ♦  Tliis  then  is  the  ef- 
ficacy of  baptism;  it  is  putting  the  child's  name  into  the  gospel  grant. — 
We  are  baptized  into  Christ's  death,  i.  e.  God  doth  in  that  ordinance, 
seal,  confirm,  and  make  over  to  us,  all  the  benefits  of  the  death  of  Christ 
— Infant  baptism  speaks  an  hereditary  relation  to  God  that  comes  to  us 
by  descent." — Tcatisc  on  Baptisnt. 

Dk.  Waterland,  an  Episcopalian  and  celebrated  scholar  and  divine  : 
"  Baptism  alone  is  sufficient  to  make  one  a  Christian,  yea,  and  to  keep 
him  such  even  to  his  life's  end  ;  since,  it  imprints  an  indelible  character 
in  such  a  sense  as  never  to  need  lepeating." 

Do  Presbyterians  charge  US  with  placing  an  undue  stress  upon  this 
ordinance'?     And  what  stress  do  they  lay  upon  it] 

In  their  "  Confession  of  Faith"  they  say  :  "  Baptism  is  a  sacrament  of 
the  New  Teslament,  ordained  by  Jesus  Christ,  not  only  as  a  solemn  ad- 
mission of  the  party  baptized  into  the  visible  church,  but  aho,  io  be  iinto 
}iivi  a  siG.M  and  a  SEAL,  of  the  covenant  of  Grace,  of  his  ingrafiing  into 
Christ,  oi'  regeneration,  of  remissisu  of  sins'." 

Is  this  objection  brought  against  us  by  Congregationalistsl  And  what 
stress  do  they  place  upon  baptismi 

Hear  the  learned  Dr.  Dwight.  "  When  children  die  in  infancy,  there 
is  much  and  very  consoling  reason  to  believe  that  tney  are  accepted  be- 
yond the  grave."  He  further  adds,  "There  is,  I  think,  reason  to  hope 
well  concerning  other  children  dying  in  infano}  ;  but  there  is  certainly 
peculiar  reason  for  Christian  parents  to  entertain  strong  consolation  with 
regard  to  their  offspring."  My  brother,  it  is  evident  Irora  the  language 
of  Dr.  Dwight  that  he  supposed  baptism  to  contribute  very  much  to  the 
salvation  of  infants. — The  language  of  Matthew  Henry  which  I  have  al- 
ready given  is  still  more  remarkable.  See  also  "  The  Baptized  Chill," 
pp.  36,  58.  3?, 

Do  Methodists  urge  this  objeclionl  And  how  essential  or  important 
do  they  deem  this  ordinance! 

The  celebrated  John  VVesley,  the  founder  of  Methodism,  says:  "  Bij 
Baptism,  v.-e  v.'ho  were  hy  nature  children  of  wrath,  are  made  the  chil- 
dren of  God.  And  this  regeneration,  which  our  church  in  so  many  pla- 
ces ascribes  to  baptism,  is  more  than  barely  being  admitted  into  the 
church,  though  commonly  connected  therewith.  *  *  *  Being  grafted  in- 
to the  Lody  of  Chiis-t's  church,  we  arc  made  the  children  of  God,  by 
adoption  and  grace.  John  3  :  5.  By  water  then,  as  the  means  the  water 
of  baptism,  we  are  regenerated,  or  born  again:  whence  it  is  called 
by  the  apostle,  the  '  washing  of  regeneration  ' — In  all  ages  the  outward 
baptism  is  a  means  of  the  inward. —  Herein  we  receive  a  title  to,  and  an 
earnest  of,  a  kingdom  which  cannot  be  moved.  In  the  ordinary  way 
there  is  no  other  means  of  entering  into  the  church  or  into  heaven. — If 
infants  are  guilty  of  original  sin,  then  they  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism, 
seeing,  in  the  ordinary  way  they  cannot  be  saved  unless  this  be  washed 
away  by  baptism." — Wesley's  Works,  vol.6,  pp.  15,  l6.  N.  Y.  183iJ.  ^ 

Do  Episcopalians  present  this  objectionl  And  what  stress  do  they  lay 
upon  this  rite? 

In  their  Catechism  occur  the  following  question  and  answer:  "How 
many  sacraments  hath  Christ  ordained  in  his  church]  Answer.  Tavo 
only,  as  generaWy  7i£cessary  to  salvatioji — that  is  to  say.  Baptism  and  the 
Supper  of  the  Lord."     After  an  infant  is  baptized  the  minister  is  required 


106 

tosav,  "  Seeing  now,  dearly  oeloved  brelliren,  lliat  this  child  is  regcnc-a- 
Ic/i,  and  grafted  into  the  body  of  Christ's  church,  let  us  give  thanks  unto 
Aiiiiifhty  God  for  these  benefits."  And  then  the  prayer  of  Thanks- 
^'i\'ing  is  ofl'ered  thus  '■  We  yield  ihee  hearty  thanks,  uiosi  merciful  Fa- 
liier,  Uiat  it  hath  pleased  thee  to  regenerate  tkia  infant  with  the  Holy  Spir- 
it, to  receive  him  for  thine  own  child  by  adoption,  and  to  incorporate 
him  into  thy  holy  church."  Tl)e  cliild  thus  baptized  is  required  to  learn 
his  catechism  before  confirmation.  In  that  catechism,  my  brother,  may 
be  found  this  question  and  answer,  which  shov\r  tiat  the  child  was  taught 
to  view  baptism  in  the  same  light. 

Question.  "  Who  gave  you  this  name!  Ansn-er.  My  sponsor  in  bap- 
lism  wherein  1  was  made  a  memhsr  of  Christ,  ilic  chi'd  of  God,  and  an  in- 
heritor of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven." 

Should  this  objection  come  from  Roman  Catholics,  (the  originators  of 
infant  baptism  and  sprinkling,)  let  us  see  what  stress  is  laid  upon  this 
institution  by  them. 

Take  the  Canons  and  Catechism  ol  the  Council  of  Trent :  "  If  any  one 
shall  say  that  baptism  is  not  necessary  to  salvation,  let  him  be  accursed. 
Sin.  whether  contracted  by  birth,  from  our  first  parents,  or  committed  by 
ourselves,  is,  by  the  adiniral  virtue  of  this  sacrament  remited  and  par- 
doncd.--ln  baptism,  not  only  sins  are  remitted,  but  all  the  punishments 
of  sins  and  wickedness  are  graciously  pardoned  of  Go.l.  "  *  *  By  bap- 
tism we  are  joined  and  knit  to  Christ,  as  members  to  the  head.  By  bap- 
tism we  are  signed  with  a  character,  which  can  never  be  blotted  out  of 
our  soul.  Besides  the  other  things  which  we  obtain  by  baptism  if  opens 
to  every  one  of  us  the  gate  of  Heaven,  which  before,  through  sin,  was 
shut."* 

1  trust,  my  brother,  after  these  quotations  from  confession?  of  faith  and 
standard  authors  ol  different  denominations,  that  you  will  not  again 
charge  us  with  placing  too  much  stress  upon  this  ordinance.  Whatever 
meaning  these  extracts  may  have  been  designed  to  convey,  I  certainly 
have  never  met  with  expressions  so  extravagant  in  any  Baptist  author. 

PcdobajyList. — My  brother,  I  was  not  aware  before,  that  any  standard 
Pcdobaptisiauthor  attachedso  much  importance  to  this  rile,  as  these  ex- 
tracts evidently  import.  There  is  another  objection  that  Pedobaptists 
very  frequently  urge  against  your  denomination.  The  Baptist  denomi- 
nation is  a  inodern  sect.  It  is  but  about  two  hundred  years  since  their 
origin,  or  thatany  one  ever  heard  of  such  a  sect.  With  what  show  of 
reason  then  can  they  claim  to  hold  the  doctrines  of  the  primitive  churches? 

Baptist.— My  friend,  if  it  could  be  proved  that  our  denomination  has 
not  existed  100  years  that  would  not  convict  us  of  error,  or  prove  that 

*  Baptism  is  deemed  so  indispensable  by  Roman  Catholics  that  even 
laymen,  physicians,  females,  etc.,  arc  authorized  to  administer  the  rite  in 
extraordinaiy  cases.  In  the  latter  part  of  the  17th  century.  Father  Jerome 
Florentini  of  Lucca  published  the  4th  edition  of  a  quarto  to  explain,  con- 
firm, and  direct  the  baptism  of  infant.s  unborn.  No  less  than  forty  im- 
primatures  and  recommendations  from  divines,  bishops,  physicians,  uni- 
versities, etc.,  accompanied  this  book.  See  Rob.  Hist,  of  Bap.,  Land.  Ed., 
1700,  f.  43'3.  In  the  year  1751,  F.  E  Congiamil^,  Doctor  of  Divinity  and 
Laws,  of  Palermo,  published  in  the  Italian  language  a  quarto  book  of  3-20 
pages  "dedicated  to  all  the  guardian  angels  to  direct  priests  and  physi- 
cians how  to  secure  the  eternal  salvation  of  infants,  by  baptizing  tliem 
when  they  could  not  be  born."  We  thus  see  how  far  the  superstition  of 
infant  baptisoi  hau  carried  people. 


107 

our  principles  are  of  recent  origin.*  To  do  this,  it  must  be  shown  by 
irrelragable  evidence  that  they  are  not  the  same,  as  those  observed  and 
practised  by  the  Apostles  and  primitive  Christians. 

The  allegation  that  the  Baptist  denomination  has  not  existed  but  about 
200  years  is  not  sustained  by  indubitable  evidence.*  We  find  by  the  .sta- 
tistic report  of  the  Baptist  Union,  convened  in  London  in  li-38,  that  there 
were  not  less  than  three  Baptist  churches  then  in  beinp,  formed  in  En"-- 
land,  A.  D.  1600.  It  has  also  been  affirmed  that  "  the  Baptists  originate^! 
in  Germany  about  the  year  15-22  at  the  beginning  of  the  Reformation.'' 
It  is  true,  that  no  denomination  oX  Pr  ok  slants  can  trace  the  origin  oCii,; 
present  name  farther  b;5cli  ihan  about  the  time  of  the  R.eformation  "  and 
most  of  I  hem  have  originated  since  that  time.  But  the  Baptists  as  a 
sect,  oannot  in  justice  be  called  Protestants,  having  always  existed  inde- 
pendenlly  of  the  Romish  Cnurch  as  we  have  abundant  evidence  to  shov.'. 
Still  it  appears  to  hi  true,  that  their  present  name  was  assumed  aboir. 
that  time;  probably  in  opposition  to  that  of  Anabaptist.*,  with  which  their 
enemies  were  constantly  reproaching  them. 

The  Penny  Cyclopaedia  published  in  London  says:  '•'  Little  is  known  of 
the  Baptists  iaEngl.md  before  the  sixteenth  century.  Their  name  then 
appears  among  the  various  sects  who  were  struggling  for  civil  and  re- 
ligious freedom.  Their  opinions,  at  this  early  period  were  sutficientlv 
popular  to  attract  the  notice  of  the  national  establishment,  as  is  evideiit 
from  the  lactthat  at  a  convocation  held  in  1530,  they  were  denounced  as 
'detesiable  heresies  utterly  to  be  condemned.'  I  Proclamations  followed 
to  banishthe  Baptists  from  the  kingdom;  their  books  were  burnt  and 
several  individuals  suffered  at  the  stake.''  "William  Sawtre  fin  the 
time  of  Henry  the  Fourth]  was  the  first  in  this  country  that  suffered  at  the 
stake  for  his  religious  opinions,  in  1401,  and  who  was  'supposed  to  deny 
infant  baptism  ;  and  Edv.'ard  Wightman,  a  Baptist  of  Burton  upon  Trent 
[in  the  reign  of  James  the  First]  was  the  last  person  who  suflered  thi^ 
cruel  kind  ofdenth  in  England.  So  that  this  denomination  has  Ihj  honor 
ofboih  leadirgthc  way, and  bringing  up  the  rear  of  all  the  martyrswhu 
were  burnt  alive  in  England;  besides  which  a  great  number  of  those  who 
suffered  death  for  their  religion,  in  the  200  intervening  years,  were  of 
the  Baptist  denomination. "t  And  from  Davis'  History  of  the  Welch 
Baptists,  it  is  evident  that  persons  believing  our  peculiar  sentiments,  have 


*  But  if  antiquity  ol  origin  alone  is  to  prove  a  denomination  righ;, 
then  it  must  be  conceded  that  the  Protestant  Pedobaptists  do  not  stand  on 
an  equal  footing  with  the  Catholics.  The  Church  of  England,  i.  e.  the 
English  Episcopal  Church,  "  first  formed  and  organized  out  of  Popery 
as  their  own  authors  abundantly  assert,  and  in  1531  adopted  immersion 
£t  their  first  organization.  This  fact  is  confirmed  by  all  history,  by  tVic 
parliamentary  act  of  1534  entorcing  immersion,"  and  by  their  rituals  the 
first  of  which  was  printed  in  1547.  [See  Hague's  Historical  discourse, 
and  J.  F.  Bliss'  fourth  letter]  The  Presbyterian  form  of  government  was 
invented  by  the  reformer  John  Calvin  not  far  from  1541. —  The  princi- 
ples of  the  reforma  ion  commenced  in  Scotland  in  1527  and  the  Presby- 
terian polity  was  introduced  on  the  island  in  1592  by  Andrew  Melville. — 
The  first  Congregational  church  was  formed  in  the  north  of  England 
in  1G02  by  the  Rev.  John  Robinson.  [See  Encyclopedia  of  Religious 
Knowledge]  All  of  these  Protestant  dissenters  generally  practised  im- 
mersion down  to  the  seventeenth  century. 

+  Encyclopaedia  of  Religious    Knowledge — Backus'  Hist,  of  the  Am 
Baptists. 


•  uA  \n  Waks  in  every  age  of  the  church  from  he  days^of  ihe  apostles.* 
cxjsttdin  W  a  es,  m  tv  ,  ^  ^  ^^  jj^  primitive  Christians  were  de^ 
But,  my  iriend,  J'J,'^^  ""  ^'""[hev  were  whkt  would  now  be  railed  by  this 
nominated  Baptist.  ^5  historical  evidence  that  persons  holding  our 
name.     We  tiav^apmm  ^^^  baptism  ofbehevers  on  a  profes- 

distingmshingsenl  mems  <^^^  valid  scriptural  baptism,)  have  existed  m 
sion  of  la.th,  consumes  ihe^only^^^^^^^^  H^^  ^^^^  Christian  Era, 

every  age  oi  me  v^ii"!"-") »'" 

down  to  the  P'-esen;'^;'"?-.      ^^^  i^j^hest  Pedobaptist  testimony  that  infant 
Wehave  alsop  ovedDv    he     .  rtoflhe  second  or  the  beg ia- 

baptism  had  no  f^^^^^^  ""^'^  ^i^ht  idd  the  testimony  of  many  other, 
ning  of  the  'i^'  ^  ^en^^e  to  name  only  a  few.  Salmasius  and  Sm- 
to  this  point,  but  we  imveuH  one  was  baptized  except  being  in- 

cERUs.  "  In'he  '^"  J''J"  Jua S''^  '^''^  """  '^  of  Christ,  he  was 

strucied  "V^^^^^tl.  fb'lftve""  Chamber's  Cyclopedia.  "  It  appears 
able  to  Pi^o;^^.^'^^'^.^^,,^'': 'e  were  baptized  but  adults."  Arlide  Baptxsm. 
that  in  primitive  times  none  were^DP^^^^^     ^,_,^^    introduced    mihout 

CuiicELAUs    s.ays:        J-n^  j^ihetwc    first, centuries    after    Christ, 

ihe   command   ot  ^^"su   i  third  and  lourth  was  allowed  by 

itwas  altogether  unknown    .but  1^^^^  ^^  ^^^^^^  .„  ^,i^^,,^  placcs.-- 

a  few,  in  the  fifth  and  folio wu,  a ^e.  ^^  J^^^^^  ^^  ^^^  La  RoauE.  T.  L.nv- 
The  testimonies  ot  BtsHoi   o  -  ^  j    confirmation  o:  this  lact. 

s^N  and  many  olhersM^iightb.  adduce^  interrupting  >ou,   but  if  the 

PedobaptisL--^yJ^e^^^^^^^^^  ^^^  jP^^.^^lj  i„q,ira.  how 

testimonies  you  have  ^^^^^t^^    ^^i 
infant  bapti-trn  ^^^firs  inUoMceQ.  ^^,^^  ^^.^^..^  necessary  to  salva- 

Baptist.-li  ^^as  on  the  ground  11^  consequently  lost.  Hence  the  En- 
tion,  and  P^f  °"^^y;,"^j;y^°"Thrdoctrinc  of  Augnstine,  that  the  un- 
cyclopedia  Americana  says_  ^  ^^.  children  general."- 
bapli7.ed  were  irrevocaWy  lost,  iMcte  f  ^^^^^  ^^^^  ^^^  ^^^^^  ^^  ^j^^ 
These  are  Au?"si,ne  s  woid.^  i  o  J\^^,^  ^^^  if  ,^,y  die  wiih- 
use  of  reason,  but  also  cJ^^jd/J^^^^t  fir,  „  The  learned  Strabo,  who  wrote, 
out  baptism  do  go  imoeveud.^-^^^  .^  the  primitive  limes  baptism 
A.  D.  8.')0,  says:   "  It  is  lo  ue  i.ui^u  ^^___ 

.^ — . uvh  ^r^  of  T^di-np    sent  Austin  the  monk 

~^^^M^^^  tJ'he  church  of  Rom. 

into  England,  to  bruiz  the  bax'n.H  country,  they  kept  sound 

for  as  long  asthe  British  chuH:he^^^^^^^  Christ.    At 

inlhetaiih,andpureinihe  WO'  n,  ^^^^^     ^^  Bangor  on 

hat  time  the   old  Bntons  were  pimc^  .^.       2  100  christians. 

;i;eNorth[of.hisprinc>pality]wasacoll^^^^^^      ^^  ^^^^  ^„^,^„ 

This  college  sem  forth  many  luei  ^^  Worcestershire;  where  he 

got  many  ot  these  to  f,  ^°"?^^  ^^^i.^  th^e  Ro.r.ish  r  tes,  etc.,  zo/nch  hey  re- 
propounded  to  them  the  eu-brac  ^^^^  ^^^^^^  ^^        ;,,,,,, 

W^.     Then  he  said  to  'hem.  ^i"^^  >  o  ^^^  ^^^^  .^     ^^j.  j^^^p, 

rally  assent  you  to  me  specially  mthieeit^u^  ^^^^^  you  give 

[ng  Easterday,  as  n  is  ^^'^'d  Jh,  ,5  tilt  you  preach  'to  the  Saxons 
Christendom  to  children      An^   5^^,;^;  ^^bate  1  shall  sufl-er  vou  toamend 
as  I  have  exhorted  yo";f^J/;'  X^  <>y  would   not."     Whereupon  hfr 
and  reform  among   y^^'f^^l'^f^^^,  Ld  nearly    extinguished   -heir 
broughttheSaxonsaga.nst  them  in  V  ,,        Loyde  gives  a  graphic 

faith?    (AbridgedJroviH.Da7ivers^)  /    ^.   Ban-or  by  the  arrogant 

descript>on  of  the  destrucuon  of    he    coUe  e  whole  house. 

Sg^-'tLnuh'  iSelr  Liit'k^riTmoJe  pr.cious  than  gold)  were  entirely  de^ 
stroyed. 


109 

was  given  to  those  only  who  were  arrived  to  maturity  of  body  and  mind, 
but  when  diligence  about  our  divine  religion  increased,  the  orthodox  un- 
derstanding, that  the  original  sin  of  Adam  did  involve  in  guilt,  lest  chil- 
dren should  perish,  appointed  them  tobe  b.iptized  for  the  pardon  of  sins." 
Wall,  vol.  2,  p.  1-3. 

We  mighi  subjoin  a  multitude  of  testimonies  of  the  same  purport  ;  but 
we  Vi'ill  only  mention  the  name;,  ot  Anselm,  Bernard,  Dodwell,  Vossius' 
Watcrland,  Church  of  Wiltemburgh,  Church  of  Rome,  Council  of  Trent' 
and  Church  of  England.— (See  chap.  9th  of  Westlake's  view  of  bap.) — 
Even  after  the  introduction  of  infant  baptism,  many  did  not  receive  it, 
and  many  opposed  ii.  Ttiis  fact  is  confirmed  by  the  historical  account 
of  the  following  fathers  and  eminent  men,  whom  we  are  informed  "were 
born  of  chrisiian  parents  anl  yet  not  baptized  till  adult  age,"  viz  :  Con- 
stantine  who  flourished  about  A.  D.  325.  Basil  and  Gregory  Nazianzen 
about  A.  D.  300.  Ambro.^e  A.  D.  374.  Jerome  A.  D.  380.  Chrysostom 
A.D.  398.  Augustine,  400.  St  Austin,  597,  and  others.*  This  fact  is 
also  confirmed  by  "the  pressing  exorlations,  lound  in  early  writings 
addressed  to  prolessed  christians  to  come  to  baptism. "t  ti  gcther  with  the 
awful  anathemas  pronounced  at  different  times  by  the  dominant  party,  up- 
on those,  that  denied  infant  baptism,  Robinson  states  in  his  Researches;, 
that  "  there  is  no  trace  of  infant  biptism  among  the  Catholics  of  Spain 
earlier  than  the  year  517."  And  history  informs  us  that  it  was  introdu- 
ced into  England  by  Austin  in  596.  I  would  further  add  that  there  is 
strong  evidence  on  record,  that  the  infants  spoken  of  by  Origen  and  others, 
were  not  natural  infants.  Cardinml  Bellaumine  observes  :  "  Orgen's  in- 
fants were  capable  of  repentance  and  martyrdom  but  the  infants  of 
the  reformers  were  incip,  ble  of  either."  Bp.  Victor's  account  of  the 
church  of  Cartha<je  and  Clkment's  hvmn  corroborate  this  statement  of 
Bellarmine.  Sen  Wstlukeon  Bap.  ch.  8<A.— From  these  testimonies,  it 
js  clear  that  the  bapi  ism  of  natural  infants,  was  nor  so  early,  notso  gen- 
eral, as  many  Pedobaniis's imagine. 

As  it  regards  the  rite  ot  primitive  immersion,  for  which  the  Baptists 
80  strenuously  contend,  we  have  shown  that  the  whole  world  with  few 
excep  ions  practised  it  tor  fifteen  centuries,  and  England  for  sixteen;  — 
while  the  Giee'c  chitich  have  ocn'inued  it  till  this  time.  We  would  also  re- 
mark that  IVlo.sheim  with  all  his  prejudices  against  the  Baptists,  has  given 
a  description  of  the  primitive  churches  which  will  not  apply  to  his  own, 
the  LuUieran,  nor  to  any  sect  in  Ciirisiendom  except  the  Baptists.  "The 
churches  in  those  early  times,"  he  says,  "were  entirely  independent, 
none  of  them  subject  to  any  foreign  jurisdiction  but  each  one  governed 
by  its  own  rulers  and  laws."  "A  bishop  during  the  first  and  second  cen- 
tury, was  a  person  who  had  the  care  of  one  Christian  assembly.  In  this 
assembly  he  acted  not  so  much  wiih  the  authority  of  a  master,  as  with  the 
zeal  of  a  faithful  servant."  "  B  tptism  was  administered  in  the  first  cen- 
tury, without  the  public  assemblies,  in  places  appointed  fcr  that  purpose, 
and  w.s  performed  by  imm  rsion  of  the  whole  b-idy  in  water"  Mr. 
Robinson  the  histoiian,  after  a  most  thorough  research,  confiims  these 
statements  of  Moshcim,  and  expre.-sly  aflirms  that  "A  II  this  lime  they 
were  Baptist  churches;  and  though  all  the  fathers  of  the  four  first  ages, 
down  to  Jerome,  were  of  Greece,  Syria  and  Africa,  though  they  gave 
great  numbers  o(  histories  of  the  baptism  of  adults,  yet  there  is'not  on 
record  the  baptism  of  a  child  till  the  year  370,  when  Galates,   the  dying 

♦(See  Miller's  History,  Wall's  Hist.  Int.  Bap.,  Du  Pin.,  Grotius,  etc.) 
t  (See  Basil's  Orat. Exhort,  ad  Bap.  in  Wall's  Hist.  pt.  1,  chap.  12,  §  3.) 


110 

son  of  the  Emperor  Valens,  was  baptized,  by  order  of  llie  monarch   who 
.^wore  he  would  not  be  contradicted.     The  ageof  the  prince  is  uncertain 
and  the  assigning    of   his  illness  as   the  cause  of  his  b?ptism     iadicatea 
clear  enough  ihat  infant  baptism  was  not  in  practice  " 

Pcdobuplisl.-  My  friend,  before  I  interrupted  you,'  you  slated  that  you 
•tjad  abundant  evidence  to  show  that  the  Baptists  have  always  existed 
indpendently  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  cannot  iherefore  in 
jus.ice  oe  called  Protestants."  Now  as  this  is  a  new  idea  to  mc,  it  would 
\y.i  very  gratifying  to  hear  what  historical  evidence  you  have  lo  substan- 
uate  It. 

BapUsl.—  ln  the  third  century  the  primitive  churches  became  corrupt- 
ed from  Ihejr  primitive  simplicity,  and  then  we  hear  of  the  consecration 
of  baptismal  water;  the  use  of  sponsors  ;  theimposiiion  of  handsat  bap- 
tism; material  unction  at  confirmation;  prayers  for  tiie  dead- infant 
communion  and  infant  baptism,  &c.  Then  those  who  contended  for 
'•the  apostles' doctrine  and  fellowship  and  for  the  faith  once  delivered 
lolhesaints,"  findingthe}  couldnot  "resist  the  torrent  of  corruption,  giad- 
nally  separated  tkemselves  from  a  community  that  had  become  unworthy 
of  the  Christian  name."  The  prevailing  parly  assumed  the  name 
Catholic  church,  and  denominated  the  true  church  heretics.  This  par'v 
under  different  names  such  as  Novalians,  Donaiists,  etc.,  "declared  ihei'r 
community  to  be  the  only  true  church,"  and  "notwiihnianding  the  repre- 
sentations of  their  adversaries"  ihey  have  no  doubt  "some  just  claims  to 
be  regarded  as  the  pure,  uncorruptcd  and  apostolic  churches  of  Christ," 
they  baptized  anew  those  who  camt  over  to  them  from  the  Catholics  and 
othersecLs.  The  JMovatians  called  themselves  ca^'/rt?-/,  that  is,  p;ire. — 
Crantz  (in  his  History  of  the  United  Biethren)  says:  'These  '  ancient 
Christians,  who,  besides  the  several  names  of  reproach  given  them,  were 
at  length  denominated  Waldenses,  from  one  of  their  most  eminent  teacU- 
ers,  Peter  Waldo,  daie  their  origin  from  the  beginning  of  the 
fourth  ceniury ;  when  one  Leo,  at  the  great  revolution  in  religion  under 
Constantine  the  Great,  opposed  the  innovations  of  Sylvester,  Bishop  of 
Rome.' 

"Tlie  Cathnri,  or  Puritan  churches  of  the  Novatians,  also,  had  at  that 
very  period  (about  A.  D.  3-25)  b:en  flourishing  as  a  distinct  communion 
tor  more  than  seventy  years  all  over  the  empire,  maintainina:,  by  the  ac- 
knowledginent  oi  their  enemies,  the   self-styled    CalhoUcs  the  integrity  of 
the  true  faith,  together  wiih  the   purity  of  discipline   and  the  power   of 
godliness  which  had  generally  disappeared  from  the     Caiholic   eluuchcs. 
Ihe  Puritans    being  exposed    to  severe  and  sanguinary  persecution  lor 
dissent,  from  age  to  age   weie  compelled  to  shelter  themselves  from  the 
desolating  storm  in  retiremeni;  and  when  they  reappear  oa  the  page  of 
contemporary  history  to  propagate  iheir  principles,  ihey  arestyled  a  new 
sect,  and  receive  a  n,;w  name,  though  in  reality  they  are  the  samepjo'  le. 
"  The  same  great  principles  of  attachment  to  the'wotd  of  God,  and  de- 
termined adlierence  to  the  simplicity  of  its  doctrines,  discipline,  inslitu- 
lions,  and  worship,  in  opposition  to  the  innovations  of  a  secular  spirit  and 
)iolicy  on  theone  hand,  and  ot  false  philosophy  or  of  pretended  apostoli- 
cal tradition    on  the  o.lier,  may  be  traced  under  the  name   ofNovaiians, 
Donatists,  Lucilerians,  and  vErians,  from  the  third  to   the  seventh   centu- 
ry.'    In  the  seventh   century,   they    were  denominated  Paulicians,  and 
fahsely  by  some  Manichccism:  but  from  the  middle  of  this  to  the  end  of 
Ihenintli  century,  they  worthily  sustained  by  Iheir  preaching,  Iheir  lives, 
and  their  martyrdoms,  their  claim  of  being  the  genuine  decendants  of  the 
primitive  churches      From  Asia  Minor  they  spread  themselves  over  Eu- 
I'ope.    *    ♦    ♦    They  were  called  in  France  Bougres,  or  Bulg-arians. 


Ill 

Tisserands  or  Weavers,  Bos  Homos  or  Good  Men.  In  Germany,  they 
were  called  by  the  old  name  of  Caiiari,  orby  corruption  Gazari,  i.  e. 
Puritans.  In  Italy,  Paterines,  Jo.sephisls,  Arnoldists  and  Fratricelli.— 
They  were  denominated  Waldenses  [i.  e.  "inhahitant.s  of  the  valleys,"  as 
Mr. 'Robinson  shows,]  as  early  as  IIUO,  sixty  years  bt-lbre  Peter  Waldo. 
Soon  :;ier  this,  in  L.  iiguedoJ  and  Piovence,  they  received  the  name  ot 
Pelrobrasians  and  Henricans,  from  their  celebrated  leaders  Peter  de 
Bruis,  &  Henry  his  successor,  who  powerlullf  advocated  and  greatly 
extended  their  principles  among  the  most  intelligent  classes,  (from  1110 
to  1163.)  From  the  places  where  they  flourished  they  were  called  Tou- 
iousiaus,  Albl^enses,  and  afterwards  Poor  Men  of  Lyons  and  Leonists. 
♦  *  *  In  IIG'J  some  of  them  crossed  from  Gascony  to  England,  where 
they  were  called  Pophlicians  and  Publicans,  corruptions  of  the  original 
name,  Paulicians.  About  this  time  arose  the  celeb:  aicd  Peter  Waldo,  of 
Lyons,  wliose  labors,  learning',  zeal  and  liberality  greatly  extended  iheir 
principles. 

"  Their  enemies  confirm  tlieir great  antiquity.  'Rcinerius  Saccho,  the 
bloody  inqui>itur,'  Dr.  Macl.iin  savs,  (in  his  notes  to  Mosheiin  vol.  1,  p. 
332,)  'who  exerted  such  a  furioiis  zeal  for  the  destruction  of  ll;e  Wal- 
denses, lived  about  HO  years  afer  Peter  Waldo,  and  must  therelbre  be 
supposed  to  have  known  whether  he  was  the  real  founder  of  the  Walden- 
ses or  Leonists,  and  yet  it  is  remarkable  thai  he  speaks  o!  them  as  a  sect 
that  had  flout  i-hed  above  500  years.  This  c:,rries  us  back  to  the  year 
GGO,  t'e  time  of  the  appearance  of  the  Paulicians,  or  rather  of  their  great 
revival  and  increase  under  the  labors  of  Constantine  Sylvanus.  Indeed, 
there  is  not  wanting;  evidence  tos.iow  that  churches  of  the  Puritan  order 
existed  at  that  time  in  the  West  as  well  as  the  l^ast.  In  the  yearS.VS,  nine 
Bi-.hops  of  Italy  and  Switzerland  openly  refuse  I  communion  with  the 
Pope  of  Feme,  and  the  churches  under  iheir  care  persisted  in  their  dissent.' 

Reinerius,  hi;iiself  a  Caiholic,  has  given  these  Waldenses  or  Poor  men 
of  Lyons,  one  of  the  best  chri-tian  characters.  "Of  all  the  sects  which 
have"  been  or  now  exist,"  says  this  inquisitor,  "none  are  more  injurious 
to  the  Church  (i.  e.  of.RomeXlor  three  reasons.  1.  Because  it  is  more 
ancient.  Soma  aver  their  exi>tence  from  the  lime  of  Sylvester;  others 
from  the  time  of  the  Apostles.*  i.  Because  it  is  so  universal.  There  is 
scarcely  <  ny  country  in  which  lliissect  has  not  crept.  3.  Because  unlike 
other  heretics  they  have  a  great  appearance  of  piety,  they  live  justly  br- 
fore  men,  believe  rightly  all  things  concerning  God,  ec.  A  concessioti 
like  this  coming  fiomsiich  a  source  speaks  vcinmes."  They  were  strong- 
ly aitached  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  regarded  them  as  tlu-  only  source 
of  faith  and  religion. — Their  sciiptural  siinplicity  and  soundness  of  be 
lief  isacknowledgcd  by  their  adversaries,  and  amply  confirmed  by  Iheir 
own  auiheniic  raunuments  and  confessions  uf  faith,  several  o(  which  arc 
printed  at  length  in  Jones'  History  of  the  Chi.rch. — Their  purity  and  ex- 
cellence of  life  and  manners  is  conceded  by  an  ancient  inqitisitor  and 
Seisselius,  archbishop  of  Turin,  al>o  sa3's  :  '7heir  heresy  exceptcil, 
they  generally  live  a  purer  life  than  other  Christians  ' — Their  enlighten- 
ed favor,  courage,  an  1  zeal  is  admitted  by  Rcinerius  and  he  assigns 
that  as  the  cause  of  their  great  increase.  'All  of  them,'  says  he,  '  men 
and  women,  night  and  day,  never  cease  from  teaching  and  learning'  and 

♦  Dr.  Macliin  says  that  Reinerius  himself  'even  mentions  authors  of 
note  who  make  their  antiquity  remount  to  the  apt^'olic  age.  When  the 
Papists  ask  us,  wheie  our  religion  was  bei"ore  Lu:her,  we  generally  nn- 
swei,  in  t/ij Bible.  But  to  gratii'y  their  taste  for  tradition,  and  humaa 
authority  we  may  add  t«  this  answer  en  J  in  the  vallics  of  Piedmont.' 


112 

lie  adds  ihey  teach  those  whom  they  bring  over  to  their  party,  what  man- 
ner ot  persoas  the  disciples  of  Chri<t  ought  to  be  ;  and  this  they  do  by 
the  doctrine  of  the  evangelists  and  apostles,  saying  that  those  only  are 
the  followers  of  the  apostles  who  imitate  their  manners  of  life.  Hence 
their  steady  oppposition  to  all  corruptions  and  anti-christian  usurpations 
ol'the  Roman  Catholic  Church. — Their  views  of  liberty  of  conscience 
were  enlightened.  'They  affirm,'  says  the  inquisitor,  'that  no  man  ought 
to  be  forcibly  compelled  in  matters  of  laith,'  in  this  particular,  and  in 
their  ]ust  ideas  of  the  nature  and  character  of  a  church  of  Christ,  they 
were  far  in  advance  of  the  relormers,  Luther  and  Ca'vin.  Their  views 
of  the  gospel  church,  as  given  by  Seisselius  and  Reinerius,  coincide  with 
Mosheiras  account  of  the  churchFs  of  the  firstcentury.  It  is  also  evident 
from  the  account  their  enemies  give  of  them,  that  they  were,  and  iha-t 
too  on  principle,  opposed  to  the  church  ot  Rome,  and  to  all  national  estab- 
lished churches.  See  Encyclopcaia  of  Religious  Knoicledge,  Art.  Walden- 
^cs,  Novatia?is,  Paulicians,  etc.     Also  Jones'"  Hist. 

Some  of  the  popish  writeis  own,  says  President  Edwards,  that  those 
people  never  submitted  to  the  church  of  Rome.  One  says.  "The  heresv 
cf  the  Waldenses  is  the  oldest  here.-y  in  the  world.  It  is  supposed  that 
this  people  betook  themselves  to  this  secret  place  among  the  mountains, 
to  hide  themselves  from  the  severity  of  ihe  heathen  persecutions  which 
were  before  Constaniine  the  Great.  And  thus  the  women  fled  into  the 
wilderness  from  the  face  of  the  serpent.  Rev.  12:  G  and  14."  (Hist,  of 
Redemp.  Prd.  3  Pt.,  2:  1.)  Tc  this  agrees  Bkza  who  says,  "As  for  the 
Waldenses,  I  may  be  permitted  to  call  Ihera  the  seed  of  the  primitive 
and  purer  church." 

Mr.  Jones  who  has  given  us  the  most  complete  account  of  this  interest- 
ing people,  says  they  were  Anti-pedobaptists,  i.  e.  Baptists.  Dr.  Gill  af' 
firms  that  all  their  writings,  from  the  Noble  Lesson  in  1100,  down  to  their 
confessions  of  faith,  in  15G5,  to  be  in  favor  of  baptism  of  believers  only. 
Jt  appo-ars  certain  that  the  Cathari,  the  Paterines,  the  Berengarians,  the 
Arnoldists,  the  Petrobrusiars,  and  Henricans,  i.  e.  the  earlier  Waldeu- 
ses  were  anti-pedobaptists. 

The  Waldenses*and  Albigenses  do  wholly  reject  infant  baptism. — 
Uanvers'  reply  to  Willis,  jp.  130,  131.  For  further  evidence  on  this 
point  see  Dutch  Mariyrolosy,  pp.  307—320.  Also  Danvers  on  Bap.  pp. 
257,252,258,2:33,   2(37,  131,226,130. 

From  "  An  'Account  of  the  Origin  of  the  Dutch  Baptists,'  or  Menon- 
iies,  published  at  Breda,  in  IS  19,  by  Dr.  Ypeij,  prof  of  theology  al  Gron- 
ingen,andihe  Rev.  J.J.  Dermont,  chaplain  to  the  king  of  the  Nether- 
lands, learned  Pedobaptisls.  Y/ith  this  accouiit  Mr.  Ward  fills  several 
letters,  and  from  it  we  shall  make  some  extracts.  In  the  opinion  of  these 
learned  men  "  the  Menoniles  are  descended  from  the  tolerably  pure  evan- 
gelical Wnldenses,  who  were  driven  by  perGCcution  into  various  coun- 
tries ;  and  who  during  the  latter  part  of  the  twelfth  century  fled  into 
Flanders,  and  into  the  provinces  of  Holland  and  Zealand,  where  they 
lived  simple  and  exemplary  lives,  *  *  free  from  ihe  charge  of  any 
gross  immoralities,  and  professing  the  most  pure  ar  d  simple  principles 
which  they  exemplified  in  holy  conversation.  They  were  therefore  in 
exis'encelong  before  the  :eformod  church  of  the  Netherlands. 

"  There  were  then  twosec'.s  among  them,  distinguished  by  the  name 
perfect  and  im})erfecL  The  greater  part  of  the  first  sect  and  the  whole  of 
the  second,  were  certainly  among  the  most  pious  Christinnsthe  world  ever 
saw,  and  the  worthiest  citizens  the  state  ever  had.  History  removesevery 
doubt  on  this  subject. 

''  In  the  year  1536,  their  scattered  community  obtained  a  regular  state 
of  church  "order,  separate  from  all  Dutch  and  German  Protestants.  This 


113 

advanlage  was  procured  them  by  the  sensible  management  of  Menno 
Simons,  who  had  loimerly  been  a  popish  priest.  This  learned,  wisi-,  and 
prudent  man,  was  cliosen  by  ihem  as  their  leader.  He  purified  also  the 
religious  doctrines  ofthe  Baptists  by  reclaiming  some  of  the  perfection- 
ists to  order  and  excluding  others. 

"  We  have  now  seen  that  the  Baptists  who  were  formerly  called  Ana- 
baptists, and  in  latter  times  Menoniies,  were  the  original  Waldenses;  and 
who  have  long  in  the  history  ofthe  church  received  the  honor  of  that  or- 
igin. On  this  account  the  Baptisis  may  be  considered  as  the  only  Chr's- 
tian  community,  which  has  stood  since  the  days  ofthe  apostles,  and  as  a 
Christian  society  which  has  preserved  juire  the  doctrines  of  ilio  Gospel 
through  all  ages.  The  perfectly  correct  external  and  internal  economy 
of  the  Bapti.st  dene  minaiion,  tends  to  confirm  the  truth,  disputed  by  the 
Komish  church,  that  the  relormation  brought  about  in  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury, was  in  the  highest  degree  necessary;  and  at  the  same  time  goes  to 
refute  tiie  erroneous  notion  of  the  Catholics,  that  their  communion  is  the 
most  ancient,"  [and  I  might  add,  the  idea  entertained  by  many  of  the 
Protestant  Pedobaptists,  that  the  Baptist  denomination  and  their  princi- 
ples are  of  recent  origin  ]     Thus  far  Dr.  Ypeij  and  Dermont.  «i^^ 

"  This  testimony  from  the  highest  official  authority  in  the   Duch  Re- ^ 
formed  chi'rch,  is  certainly  a  rare  instance  of  liberalilj- towards   another      ? 
denomination.     It  is  ccinceding  all  the  Menonites  or  Baptists  claim.     It 
should  be  added  that  they  have  constantly  but  politely  declined  the  .salaries 
which  the  government  of  Holland  oflers   to  all  denominations  under  its 
authority." 

The  concession  ofthe  learned  Mosheim  goes  to  confirm  the  statements 
of  Dr.  Ypeij  and  Dermont,  he  says  :  "The  true  origin  of  that  sect  vvhich 
acquired  the  denomination  of  Anabaptists  .  .  .  and  derived  that  of  Men- 
onites from  the  famous  man  to  whom  they  owe  the  greatest  part  of  their 
present  felicity,  is  hidden  in  the  depths  of  ant'uiidly.  The  Menonites  are 
not  entirely  in  error  when  they  boast  of  their  descent  from  the  SValdei}- 
ses,  Pelrobrusians,  and  other  ancient  sects,  who  a^e  usually  considered 
witnesses  ofthe  tiuth  in  the  times  of  general  darkness  and  superstition."' 

The  views  of  ih3  Menonites  respecting  baptism  may  be  derived  from 
the  writings  ol' their  learned  and  di-^tinguished  leader  Mcnno,  who  says: 
"After  we  have  searched  ever  so  diligently,  we  shall  find  no  other  bap- 
tism but  dipping  in  water,  which  is  acceptable  to  God  and  approved  in 
his  word."  See  Ency.  Reli.  Knowl.  Art.  Menonites,  Mosheim,  and  Ward's 
letters. 

LYMi3oncn,'^Prof.  of  Diviniiyin  the  University  of  Amsterdam,  says: 
"  To  speak  candidly  of  what  I  ihink  ol  all  the  modern  sects  of  Christians 
the  Dutch  Bapiists  most  resemble  both  the  Albigenses  and  Waldenses.'' 
Other  testimonies  might  be  adduced  but  this  will  suffice. 

Pedobaptlsl. — My  friend,  the  abundant  evidence  you  have  furnished  to 
show,  that  the  Baptists  are  not  of  recenc  origin,  hut  that  persyns  holding 
their  distinguishing  seniimcnts  have  existed,  under  diliercut  names,  in 
every  age  of  the  church,  and  that  too,  independently  ofthe  Romish 
communion,  has  been  not  only  interesting,  but  very  edifying — I  also  feel 
compelled  by  a  sense  of  justice,  to  acknowledge  that  your  answers  to  my 
questions,  objections,  etc.,  have  removed  much  of  ilie  prejudice,  as  well 
as  the  most  prominent  objections,  I  entertained  against  your  denomina- 
tion. But  as  lam  still  ignorant  to  some  extent  of  your  principles  olckso 
communion,  Providence  permiltin?,  I  should  like  to  converse  with  you, 
^t  some  convenient  opportunity  on  thatsubject. 

Baptist. — My  brother,  supjjoseyou  call  next  Monday  evening  if  your 
avocations  will  permit. 

Pedoba2'tist.— Agreed. 


CON  VERSATIOiS'    RESUMED, 


Pedoiaptist. — My  friend,  in  compliance  with  your  request,  T  have  called 
ihis  evening  lo  converse  with  yen  on  the  subject  of  communion.  It  is  but 
just  to  Slate  here,  that  the  evidencts  you  pnidiu-ed  iiom  Sciiptuie,  elc, 
in  the  former  part  of  this  Conversation,  to  prove  that  Bap/ism  is  ;:n  indis- 
pensable prerequisUe  to  communion,  were  cuuclusive  to  my  mind,  and  com- 
pletely confirmed  me  in  the  belief  of  the  Irutli  ol  that  position.  And  as 
you  furnished  the  same  Scripture  evidence  to  support  the  sentiment,  that 
iai:h  is  an  indispensable  pre  vninnryiQ  baptism,  1  feel  mysell  lilrewise  con- 
Mraincdby  evidence  and  conscience,  lo  idrait  the  truth  of  this  position. 
I  also  coincide  wiih  you  in  the  belief,  that  biplisni  .is  f.n  e.sstntla'l'pre- 
'requi!>ite  to  church-membersnip.  But  notwiilisianding  all  this,  ii  appeairs 
to  me  that  there  is  something  wrong  about  this  cloie  communion.  Now, 
inv  brother,  can  you  inlorm  me  what  that  is. 
'^'Z?rt^/ts/.-^I.am  very  willing  to  acknowledge,  that  there  is  something 
wrong  about  this  close  companion,  as  you  term  it.  But  are  the  Baptist.^ 
v.-rong  in  this  mat'cr"?  If  so,  then  it  must  either  be  in  their  principles, 
or  their  practice,  or  in  both;  and  as  you  have  frankly  acknowledged  that 
their  principles  are  in  harmony  with  Scripture,  it  Ibllows,  as  their  pi-ac- 
lice  is  the  carrying  out  of  tho<e  principles,  that  if  they  are  wrong,  then 
the  Scriptures  are  equally  wrong; — a  position,  my  friend,  1  am  sureyou 
M-ill  not  mainiain.  But  as  the  question  still  returns;  what,  or  where  is 
ihe  wrongi  In  reply  I  will  endeavor  to  specify  somethings  that  1  deem 
MTong  in  the  Pedobaptists.  It  is  wrong  in  them  lo  appeal  to  the  sympa- 
thies of  community,  by  exciting  and  keeping  up  a  continual  ouicry  about 
the  close  communion  ol  the  Bapii>ts,  in  order  to  reiider  them  odious  in 
the  eyes  of  communiiy.  It  is  manifestly  wrong,  for  any  person  to  give 
currency  or  publicity  to  even  a  questionable  repori,calcui.ited  to  diminish 
ihe  reputation  whicli  a  man  sustains  in  community.  In  doing  this,  one 
may  be  guilty  of  pro,'agating/«Z.':e/(06fi  as  well  as  slander.  Again,  it  is 
wrong  for  any  man  lo  make  anoiher  the  object  of  ridicule,  and  in  ihis 
manner  prejudice  others  against  him  ;  and  ilius  impair  his  repuiniion,  by 
lessening  him  in  Ihe  estimation  of  coinmunitv.  In  the  epistle  ol  Titu.^, 
"aged  women  are  cautioned  against  being  false  accusers,  The  original 
is  still  more  impressive.  'I'his  inl'ernal  disposition  of  s'anderers  is 
frequently  seen  in  ihe  manner  in  which  they  atiack  persons  most  eminent 
lor  piety  and  usefuIne-.=.  Baxter  was  represented  as  a  murderer.  While- 
field  as  all  that  was  vile.  Our  Savior  as  a  glution  and  drunkard."  Again 
the  .lews  called  him  an  impostor,  and  tlien  crucified  him.  The  martyrs 
weie  1  epresented  as  heretics,  bi  lore  they  were  beher.dcd,  or  buined  at 
the  slake.  This  same  disposition  still  exists.  Almo>t  all  denominaiions 
of  Christians,  even  in  this  age  of  uidjoun''ed  charily,  unite  in  applying 
theepiihet  close  communion  as  a  term  of  reproach  to  the  Baptist  denom- 
ination. This  corroborates  the  remark  you  made  at  the  C(mimencement 
of  this  eonversaiion,  viz:  that  the  Baptist  denominalitin  are  "every 
where  spoken  against."  I'liey  are  stigmatized  and  calumniated  by  al- 
most every  sect  as  cl  »se  communionis's  ;  when  in  fact  t!iat  cpiihet  is  no 
imore^applicable  to  them  than  it  is  to  ihe  Pedobapii^is.  Is  it  not  pl;;inly 
Uhedesign  of  those  who  raise  ihis  ouicry  r.buui  ihe  close  communion  of 
ihe  Baptists,  (especially  those  who  are  acquainted  with  their  principles 
and  practice,)  to  stigmaiize  them,  and  in  this  manner  prejudice  ignorant 
blinds  against  theml     How  often  doss  this  old  leaven  oi   vile  misrepre- 


115 

senintion  sour,  prejiuHce,  and ilisg;ust  niany  liberal  miiuis,  anj  prevent 
tliem  from  making  any  thing  like  an  impartial  examination  of  our  dis- 
tinguishing sentiments'?  Have  not  lliese  slanderous  reports  b^en  circula- 
ted to  a  great  extent,  and  produced  too  general  an  impression,  that  we 
are  a  rigid,  illiberal,  self-riaiitcous,  and  bigoted  people?  Thus  it  seems 
that  oar  opponents  in  the  absence  of  belter  arguments,  intend  to  load  us 
down  Willi  reproach,   and  if  po.ssib'e  impair   our  religious  influence  in 

community.  .,     

Now  the  cdecis  produced  by  these  unwarranted  representations  arelTTI^ 
ly  lamc-nlable.  It  is  an  undirrguised  fact,  thai  the  great  majority  of  youni 
converts  are  unacquamted  wiih  ihe  sentiments  of  the  Baptists,  and  the 
doctrine  and  precepts  of  the  New  Testeraent;  and  are,  therefore,  incapa- 
ble of  drawing  the  dividing  line  between  Christian  communion  or  af- 
fection, and  Church  communion  or  fellowship.  It  is  also  well  known 
lb;u  iheso  persons  regard  wiih  feelings  of  pecnliar  art'eclion  all  %\ho  bear 
iho  name  of  Christian.  Knowing  these  facts,  Pedi-bjpti^ts  are  well 
aware.-tfeat  nothing  will  exert  a  more  withering  influence  uponlheir  af- 
fec'.ionate  feelings  towards- us,  than  ilie  glowing  represenlaiion  that,  we 
nr?.  7'ig id  close  ccivimuniunisls.  Hence  we  conclude,  their  main  object  in 
s'igmaiizinffu.s  with  this  offensive  epithet,  is  obviously  for  eilect.  Now-. 
I'iiere  are  multitudes,  who,  by  reading  the  New  Testament,  have  been 
.  .dcmnly  impres.sed  with  the  conviction,  that  believers  are  the  only  prop- 
er subjects,  and  immersion  ihe'only  Gospsl  b:ij)lism,  who  nevertheless 
i;uve  beon  deterred  by  these  s'atemen  s,  Irom  the  pi^rformance  of  their  du- 
ly. Many  of  these  persons  are  ihus  prevailed  upon  by  llicse  and  o'her 
ie['.resentaiion.s,  to  give  up  the  idea  of  being  immersed;  and  to  unite 
with  tho.se  denominations,  wliich  are  represented  as  being  open  and  lib- 
eral in  their  communiun  and  feelings.  It  is  in  this  rn  nner,  my  friend, 
that  the  misrepresentation  of  our  viewsand  sentiments,  produces  wrong 
impressitms  upon  tendi:r  minds,  and  induces  many  to  '  deviate  from  the 
plain  path  ol'duty,8ndtodisiTg.ird  the  monitions  oi  conscience;  the  impres- 
sive e.xainpie  of  our  S.ivior,  and  the  ins'jiution  of  his  own  appninimeut 
at  the  very  outset  of  iheir  Christian  career.  Many  of  iliis  class  may  nov.- 
be  found  in  every  division  of  the  Pcdobiptist  church  who  hays  never  "an- 
swered ;i  good  conscit^nce"  in  this  matter;  and  consequently  will  live  in 
trouble  all  their  daya,  unless  ihey  possess  moral  courage  enouah  to  come 
out  and  follow  the  dictates  of  iheir  own  consciences  and  the  pi;;  in  direc- 
tions ot  t^ie  word  of  God.  Cluery.  Does  the  observance  of  raiUiBm 
(sjjrinkling)  for  baptism  (immersion)  .wrc  these  persons  Oij  "Ike  answer  of 
a  good  conscience  tuirards  God?"  or  are  ihey  saved  bi^  t,\e  tro-iMcs  of  a  guil- 
ty conseicnce?  On  this  subject  we  s-jieak  from  expeiience,  and  from  fiiCts 
that  have  come  wiihiii  ur  own  observation. — That  the  Baptists  are  loo 
deficient  in  the  superior  grace,  chaiiti/ — this  Sun  .-^nd  Centre  ot  the  Chris- 
tian system,  must  be  conceded.  But  that  oiher  denominations  possess  ;i 
greater  share  of  ihis"Kuperior,  crowning  grace,  and  that,  in  consequence  oi 
their  particular  views  ol  communion,  cannot  be  admiitod.  For  you 
l.now,  my  brother,  that  with  a  sing'e  exception,  we  are  all  agreed  as  it 
respects  ifie.lerms  of  communion, — in  addition  to  thi.s  1  would  al-o  remark 
that  one  of  the  peculiar  and  prominent  characteristics  of  ihe  Bapiist  de- 
nomination and  Clergy,  is  a  kind  and  liberal  feeling  to iiards  the  mem- 
bers of  other  communions.  It  is  true,  they  tenacion.sly  adheie  to  what 
they  de.  m  t/ie  faith,  and  order  of  the  gospel.  But  then  where  can  you  find 
a  denomination  that  is  more  willing,  or  ready  to  unite  with  all  chris;iand 
in  spirilnal  commdiijon,  and  in  efforts  to  advance  the  cause  o/'CJirisf. 
than  the  Baptists,  when  no  sacritice   of  conscience  or  duty  is  required'! 


116 

But  Ihey  are  even  trac^uccd  because  I  hey  are  unwilling  to  sacrilice  those. 
Now,  my  friend,  I  object  io  tiii'^  course  pursued  by  many  PedobeptistH,  a* 
iinchrislinn.  It' we  are  wrons:,  let  them  convince  xis  of  our  error  by 
argument,  and  not  resort  to  t/is  clamorous  out'/ry  about  close  communion, 
in  order  to  prejudice  people  against  us.  Again  we  object  to  their  decry- 
ing  the  oi'dinan(;e  of  Bapiism  as  a  mere  non-essenlial,  and  then  exalting 
I  lie  Lord'd  Supper,  as  the  soul,  sum  and  substance  of  all  Chiistian  affec- 

Pedoha-plist. —  I  must  acknowledge,  my  brother,  that  there  is  too  n)uch 
truth  in  your  remarks.  Yet  ^ery  many  of  those  who  stigmatize  the 
r.aptists  iis  clo.«!e  cummunionisls,  verily  believe,  that  they  are  as  rigid, 
iih'bcral,  and  iigotcd  as  they  represent  liiem.  These  false  reports  in  cir- 
culation have  ,-.0  prejudiced  their  minds  as  to  prevent  a  thorough  ex- 
amination of  your  sentiments.  Hence  their  prejudices  have  induced 
I  hem  to  adopt  and  give  currency  to  this  gratuitous  .slander. — Now,  al- 
thon^h  these  p,;r.sons'  motives  may  be  good,  still  they  are  culpable  for  en- 
dorsng  these  leports  wiihout  a  knov/ledge  of  the  r  truth,  theretbre  their 
conduct  c::nnot  bo  justified  by  the  law  of  love. 

But  you  mentioned  two  kinds  of  communion  or  fellovship.  Christian 
rmd  (  f.vrch.  As  this  is  a  distinction  I  never  before  heard  made  1  should 
be  much  gratified  to  learn  in  what  it  consists. 

Baptist — In  regard  lo  the  distinction  between  Christian,  and  church 
communion,  I  would  remark  that  it  is  no  cause  ol  wcmder  to  me  that  you 
never  heard  of  it.  For  ii  would  ^cem  by  the  conversaiion  of  manv  Pe- 
dobapiisls.  ttjat  ihey  think  there  is,  there  cin  be  no  Christian  communion, 
besides  that  manifested  in  the  pari  icipation  of  saints  with  each  other  at 
the  Lord's  table.  This  I  conceive  lo  be  a  great  misiake, — Whenever 
Chrisli;,ns  of  different  denominations,  engage  in  conversation  with  each 
other^on  experimental  religion,  they  find  their  henrts  burnina:  withiu'ihem 
in  a  Uindred  flame  of  holy'affection.  They  feel  that  ihey  have  obtained 
like  precioiis  faith  ;--that'ihey  are  children  ot  ihe  s:rm3  kind  Father;  — 
ihat  their  J03S — their  sorrows-  their  interests— their  hopes  are  in  a  great 
measure  one.  Th'xf.  love  of  the  brethren  i\\e  ^'posWe  adduces  as  evidence 
ilratwe  '-have  p  s<ed  fiom  death  unto  life."  This  is  what  we  lerr.i 
Cliristian  communion  or  affection. 

But  on  the  other  han^when  a  Christian  and  an  unbeliever  providen- 
tially laM  in  company  with  ea.;h  oiher,  and  the  .>ubjecl  of  cxj)erinienial 
ri  licion  is  imroduce'l,  we  instantly  perceive,  ih^t  there  is  no  union  of  in- 
terest, sympathy  or  reeling;  in  sh'irt.  that  there  is  no  Chrisiian  fellowship 
or  affection  exislins;  bsiween  them. 

From  this  view  of  the  subject,  we  perceive  that  faith  or  a  change  of 
heart  is  essential  to  Christian  communion  or  fellowship.  i\nd  as  we 
have  before  proved  that  Chris'ian  b  p:isni  is  an  essential  qualificaiion  to 
church  communion,  the  distinction  i<  perfectly  obvious.  Now,  as  we  all 
practise  upon  the  same  principles  in  ehur-ch  communion;  wherein  arc 
Baptists  more  close  or  restricted  than  the  Pedob.iptistsl 

Pedoba-ptist.—Viy  friend,  1  am  much  pleased  with  your  views  of  this 
subject.  Tlie  dis'inction  yen  have  made  betv^een  Chrisiian  and  Cnurch 
lellowship,  I  think  is  i^arked  and  judicious.     Hence  it  appears  that 

V T<\\\\  is  a,  prerequisite  io  Chrisiian  communion.^and  also  to  baptism; 
ond  that 

Baptism  is  a  prc?t'^7i/5//.e  to  Church  communion,  and  also  to  church 
membership. 

Now,  my  friend,  sinceyour  sentiments  and  mine  so  perfectly  coincide 
on  the  mode,  and  subjects  of  baptism,  I  feel  conscious  that  I  shall  not  be 


117 

able  to  do  justice  to  the  Pedobaptist  side  of  this  question.  And  l^ 
I  am  de>irous  of  hearing  itdiscussed  I  wou  d  iutrodut-e  toyou  m>  Presby- 
terian brother,  (who  has  been  listening  for  some  time  to  our  con versaiion) 
and  by  the  way  I  would  reinarlc  that  he  is  a  warm  advocate  for  sprink- 
ling and  Pedo'baplism.  1  «  ould  like  therefore  to  hear  you  converse  wiili 
him  on  the. subject  a  short  lime. 

P/-efiiyicriaiz.--My  brother,  I  have  been  listening  to  your  conversa- 
tion with  much  interest;  and  I  concur  with  you  b  <th,  that  b  piisai  is  a 
prerequisite  to  communion,  and  to  church-member.-l'.ip.  Bat  why,  mv 
brother,  do  your  dcnDinination  still  cling  to  close  communion'? 

S(2p^z;)7.—  iMy  friend,  you  speak  as  though  close  or  restricted  commu- 
nion is  ptrculiar  to  us  as  a  denorainaiiou.  If  this  is  the  case,  we  are  nut 
aware  of  the  fact. --If  I  mistake  not,  you  said  that  you  ''regarded  baptism 
as  a  prerequisiie  to  communion."  11  so,  I  suppose  you  restrict  your  com- 
munion to  those  whom  you  deembaptized. 

Presbi/tcrian. — Most  certainly.  You  do  not  .suppose  that  we  commuiu- 
with  unbpiized  persons! 

.Ba;>«t5^— Suppose  th.it  sev  ral  pious  Q.uakers,  who  blievethat  they 
have  been  bapti-^eti  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  who  deem  nothin:j  else  Gos- 
pel bnpii'^m,  should  so  far  depart  from  their  order,  as  to  rcquesi  admis- 
-s-ion  to  the  Lord's  table ;  would  you,  could  you  grant  their  request 

Prnsbijtinan. — We  cou:d  nut  grant  th-ir  request. — 'iheir  opinion,  or 
belief  that  they  have  been  bjpii/ed,  c:in  nevci  be  a  rule  for  vurconAuci. 
As  "eve'yone  must  give  an  account  of  himseK  unto  God,"  we  must  act 
agreeab  y  to  the  diet  .les  ol  our  own  consciences,  and  what  wc  deem  the 
plain  directions  of  the  woid  of  God.  But  then,  my  friend,  why  do  vou 
refuse  to  commune  with  us"? 

Baptist.  For  the  same  reason  precisely,  that  you  refuse  to  comirune 
with  tne  pious  Gluakers,  i.  e.  because  we  verily  believe  you  are  not  bap- 
tized. We  believe,  as  peculiar  lo  us,  that  nothing  constitu;es  Christian 
baptism  but  the  immersi  in  of  a  p'ofes.sed  believer. — Again  we  both  prac- 
tise on  precisely  the  same  [irinciples.  IJence,  if  we  are  close  commu- 
nionisis,s()  are  you.  You  reserve  to  you  selves  the  inalienable  right  ot 
judging  who  is,  or  who  is  not  baptized.     We  do  the  same. 

Pres'yienan. — This  looks  all  very  lair  ;  but  then  it  is  a  faet  that  we 
commune  wi  h  Con^tc<;ationalis!s,  Episcopalians,  Methodi'^is,  etc  ,  and 
you  will  commune  with  none  of  them.  Is  it  not  self-evident  then,  that 
we  are  more  liberal  and  open  in  our  communion  than  you  arc"? 

Baptist. — III  princip  c  I  ihink  not.  The  obvious  reason  why  you  com- 
mune with  all  these  persons  is,  becau'^e  you  deem  them  b;ip.ized.  Did 
we  believe  the  same  we  should  commune  with  them  ;  but  we  do  not,  after 
a  thorough  examinaiion  of  the  sub,ect,  bel  eve  ihat  pourirg  or 
sprinkling  is  Seriptnral  baptism.  For  that  reason  we  cannot  comnmne 
with  those  denominations.  Nowiftheeis  any  thing  in  which  we  are 
more  lestricied  than  you,  it  is  in  baptism,— not  in  communion.  For  un- 
less we  labor  under  a  mistake,  your  denomination  are  more  restricted  in 
their  communicm,  than  the  Baptists. 

Presbyterian — I  would  like  to  know  how  you  prove  this  assertion. 

Baptist.  — Oar  denomination  commune  wiih  all  whom  they  baptize, 
who  donot  forfeit  this  privilege  by  a  disorderly  walk  ;  but  the  Pedubap- 
tistsareso  much  more  restricted  in  their  communion,  th;  n  the  Baptists, 
thai  they  baptize  very  many  whom  they  reg  .rd  as  fit  recipients  of  the  rite; 
and  then  debar  tht-m  from  their  communion  table,  without  preferring  one 
charge  against  them  for  apostacy,  or  disorderly  conjurt ;  or  without  even 
being  able  to  point  out  any  parliciilar  change  in  their   character  since 


118 

Iheir  baptism.  Does  not  this  prove  conclusively,  that  Pedobaptists  are 
more  reslricted  in  their  communion  than  the  Baptists'? 

/^?T^■(!'?/te?•^a?^.— My  brother,  what  evidence  have  you  to  sustain  the  af- 
lirmalion,  ihat  the  Pedobaptists  bnptize  those  wiih  whom  they  will  not 
commune? 

Baptist. — Your  denomination  with  oiher  Pedobaptists  baptize  the  chil- 
dren of  believing  parents,  whom  they  regard  as  gospel  subjects  of  that 
initiatory  rite,  andihsn  shvit  them  cut  from  the  communiontable.  By 
what  auihority  doyoii  admit  them  to  the  first  gospel  sacrament,  on  the 
lailh  of  their  pareuis,  andthen  refuse  ihem  admission  to  the  other.* 

Presbyterian. —  My  fiiend,  the  Bible  requires  that  communicant;  should 
be  able  to  "disceVn  the  Lord's  b'ody,"a;Kl  to  '-examine"  themselves  before 
they  "eat  of  thai  bread  and  drink  of  that  cup."  Hence  it  is  plain  that  as 
infants  are  incapable  of  this,  they  have  no  right  to  be  admitted  to  this  sac- 
rament. 

Baptist. —  The  Bible  too,  as  we  have  plainly  shown,  requires  believers 
only  to  be  baptized.  And  as  infanis  are  incr^pable  ot  exercising  faith, 
Ihey  of  course  are  excluded  from  ihis  rite.t     For    they    must  be  able  to 

*  Dr.  John  Edwards  says:  "  Infant  communion  was  a  caiholic  (univer- 
sal) doctrine, — herein  all  the  Fathers  agreed."  Mosheim  says  "that  the 
sacred  supper  was  in  this  [the  second]  century  given  to  inlants."  Cyp- 
rian, who  was  born  at  the  close  of  the  second,  or  beginning  of  the  third 
century,  alludes  to  the  practice  of  infant  communion  as  a  thing  well 
known  in  his  time."  "The  majority  of  nomin  I  Christian  churches, 
which  uphold  infant  baptism,  plead  alike  for  infant  communion  to  this 
very  day.  The  Greek  Church,  the  Armenians  and  Abassens,  the  Maron- 
ites,  Mu.scovites  and  Cophti,  who  as  Dr.  Wall  observes,  constitute  the 
'biggest  half  of  Christendom,' are  as  tenacious  for  the  application  of  the 
one  ordinance  astlie  other  to  infant  subjects."  Where  is  there  any  in- 
congruity in  thisl  What  evidence  can  be  urged  to  support  one  of  these 
ordinances,  that  cannot  with  the  same  propriety  be  urged  in  iie  defence 
of  the  other.  If  one  was  in  the  church  at  the  close  of  the  second  century, 
so  was  the  other.  If  one  was  considered  necessary  to  salvation,  so  was 
the  other.  If  one  is  a  gospel  ordinance,  so  is  the  other.  If  there  is  any 
impropriety  in  administering  the  eucharist  to  infants,  there  must  be  the 
same  impropriety  in  administering  to  them  baptism.  Under  the  old 
economy,  circumcision  and  the  passover  were  intimately  conn icted. — 
Venema  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History  says:  "  In  the  ancient  church  these 
two  sacraments  in  respect  to  the  subjects,  were  never  separated  the  one 
from  the  other.'' 

+  Milton  the  celebrated  author  of  Paradise  Lost  says,  in  his  "Christian 
Doctrine,"  "Under  the  gospel,  the  first  of  the  sacraments  commonl)' 
so  called  is  baptism,  wherein  the  bodies  of  believers  who  engage  them- 
selves to  newness  of  life  are  immersed  in  running  water  [then  there 
were  no  baptisteries]  to  signify  their  regeneration  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
their  union  with  Christ  in  his  death,  burial,  and  resurrection. 

"  'From  thisstateraent  he  argues:'  Hence  it  follows  that  infants  are  not 
to  be  baptized,  inasmuch  as  they  are  incompetent  to  receive  instruction, 
or  to  believe,  or  to  enter  into  covenant,  or  ansv/er  for  themselves,  or  even 
to  hear  the  word.  For  how  can  infants  who  understand  not  the  word,  be 
purified  thereby,  any  more  than  adults  can  receive  edification  by  hearing 
an  unknown  language!  For  it  is  not  that  outward  baptism,  which  purifies 
only  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  which  saves  us,  bnt  the  answer  of  a  good  con- 
science, a.i'PGiei  testifies;  of  which  infants  are  incapable.  Besides  baptism 


no 

understand,  that  when  they  "  have  been  baptized  into  Christ,"  that  they 
"have  put  un  Christ."  Tliai  is,  ihey  have  invested  themselves  with  the 
distinguishing  robe  of  Christian  profession;  (such  is  the  idea  conveyed 
by  ihe  original  term  encdusasthe,)  and  henceforth  they  are  to  walk  "in 
newness  of  life.'"* 

Presbyterian. — The  qualifications  you  speak  of,  applies  to  adultd,  not 
to  infants. 

Baptist. — So  do  the  qualifications  you  require  for  communion,  apply 
to  adults,  no!  to  infants. 

Presbyterian. — My  friend,  I  presume  you  are  aware  that  our  denomi- 
nation are  more  liberal  in  their  views,  and  practice  of  infant  baptism 
than  fcrmerjy.  A  man  <>:  a  family  may  now  be  a  member  of  our  church 
and  observe  this  go.spel  ordinance,  in  having  his  children  sprinkled  or 
not,  as  he  pleases.  Thus  you  see  how  liberal  we  are  in  our  baptism. — 
And-again,  we  cheerfully  invite  you,  with  all  other  evangelical  Christians, 
to  commune  with  us  at  the  Lord's  table.  But  you  will  neither  accept  our 
invitation,  nor  invite  us  to  ciinraune  with  you:  is  it  not  plain  then,  that 
you  are  truly  the  close communinists? 

Baptist. —  My  friend,  intant  baptism  (sprinkling)  has  probably  been  the 
legitimate  cau.--e  of  much  uneasiness  and  trouble  in  your  churches.  This 
is  unquestionably  the  reason,  why  you  are  so  liberal  as  not  to  insist  upon 
it  as  a  positive  duly.  But  if  it  is  a  gospel  ordinance  what  right  haveyou  to 
sufler  your  members  to  live  in  the  total  neglect  of  it.  Tlie  concessions 
of  Dr.  \Voods  and  P  of  Stmit,  and  the  increasing  neglect  of  this  rite 
among  Pedobiptist  churches,  indicate  that  the  lime  is  not  far  distant, 
when  they  will  cease  to  practise  this  unscriptural  ceremony.  Ti.e  prac- 
tice of  believers'  baptism  (i.  e.  immersion)  is  becoming  more  and  more 
frequent  among  all  Pedobaptists.  Thus  we  may  see  that  a  gradual  rev- 
olution is  in  pro2:ress  which  will  eventually  demolish  thebarrier  that  now 
separates  us.  Now,  we  affection^uely  invite  you  as  Chi  istians,  lo  demol- 
ish this  barrier,  by  communing  with  us,  our  Savior,  the  apostolical  and 
primitive  Christians,  for  the  fiirst  two  centuries,  in  the  subjects,  and  mode 
of  baptism;  and  with  the  Christian  world,  for  1300  years,  in  the  observ- 
ance of  the  primitive  rite  of  baptism.  And  then  we  will  most  cheerfully 
accept  your  invitation  to  unite  with  you,  in  the  participation  of  the  Lord's 
Supper.  Now,  my  dear  brother,  if  you  are  unwilling  to  do  'his,  I  ask 
you,  I  a.sk  the  world,  u-lio  are  emphatically  t/ie  close  commimionists? 

is  not  merely  acuvriiaiit,  cont.iiniDg  a  stipulation  on  one  side,  witli  a  corresponding 
engagement  on  the  other,  winch  in  tlip  case  of  an  infant  is  impossible  ;  but  i'  is  also  a 
vow.^and  as  siicli  can  iieitl>er  be  pronounced  by  inf.mts,  nor  be  required  of  tlitm.  It  is 
remark.-ible  to  what  futile  arguments  thosedivines  have  recourse  to,  who  roaintain  the 
contrary  opinion-:'." 

*  Baptists  commune  with  those  whom  they  baptize,  unless  in  their  view  they  depart 
from  "apostolic  doctrine  and  fellowship."  But  the  I'ed. .baptists  shut  out  from  the 
communion  many  whom  they  professedly  baptize,  and  even  their  children  they  subject 
to  the  same  treaiment.     Is  not  tlii.s  close  communion  1 

The  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faitli,  \i.Tri,  says:  "A  particular  cliiir.h  consists 
of  a  numlier  of  profcssin!;  Christians,  with  their  oflspring,  voluntarily  associated  to- 
ga her  for  (Uvine  worship,  and  godly  living."  Again,  p;.£e  327,  "Children  born  within 
The  pale  of  the  visiWe  church,  and  dedicated  to  God  in  Baptism,  are  under  th.-  inspec- 
tion and  .rovernnient  of  the  church,— and  when  they  come  to  years  of  discretioti,  if 
thev  be  free  from  scandal,  sober  and  steady,  and  have  sufficient  knowledt'?  to  discern 
the" Lord's  body,  they  ought  to  be  informed  it  Is  their  duty  and  privilege  to  come  to  the 
Lord's  8upper." 

QiiFSTKiN  6-2  (large  Catechism.)     "What  is  the  visible  church  ? 

Answer.  "The  visible  chur-li  is  a  society  maile  up  of  all  siidi  cs,  in  all  ages  and 
places  of  the  world,  do  profess  the  true  religion,  and  of  their  children." 

Porter  on  Christian  Baptism,  p.  lOS,  says:  "  Baptized  children  are  members  of  the 
visible  church." 


120 

Presbyterian. — If  you  will  not  romiTiUne  -u'iih  us  at  the  Lord's  table;, 
why  should  we  cormnune  wjili  you  in  your  bap' ism? 

Baplist  — We  have  shown  that  wf  co-ild  not  commune  with  you,  with- 
out sacrificing;  our  principles:  Besidts,  b  ipii^m  comes  first,  in  the  divine 
commission  ;  (:ind  if  weweie  t>'jidi:e  tr;im  ihe  number  of  times  it  is  men- 
tioned in  the  New  Testament,  we  mus  conclude,  to  say  the  least,  that  it 
is  of  as  much  impoitance,  as  the  Lur>l's  Suppi  r;)  hence  the  reason  is  ob- 
vious, why  you  should  first  comrauiip  with  us  in  tl.is  ordinance.  Tlien 
we  can  travel  on  wiih  you  in  the  higliway  cast  up  by  Zion's  King,  for 
the  ransomed  lo  v.'.ilk  in  to  the  Lord's  tupper.  But,  my  friend,  if  you,  in 
direct  violaliois  ofihe  great  law  of  ihe  ;ommission,  and  conirary  to  apos- 
tolic example,  refuse  to  commune  with  us  and  the  Christian  world  for 
centuries,  in  this  firs:  gospel  ordinance,  (baptism)  when  you  can  do  it, 
wilhoui  violaiing  cither  law,  priijciple,  or  conscience;  is  it  not  self-evi- 
dent, that  you  alone  are  respoasible  for  all  the  evils  ol  close  communion? 
Again,  if  you  cannot  commune  with  us  and  the  apostles  in  the  primitive 
observance  of  ihe  firs!  of  the  gospel  ordinances,  how  can  yon  expect  us 
to  commune  wiih  j/oM  in  the  second  ;  or,  in  oiher  words,  if  you  will  not 
commune  with  us  in  our  strict  adherence  to  apostolical  example ,  how  can 
vou  exfiect  us  to  commune  with '<?!/- in    deviation    from  <.ezr  example. 

Presbi/icria)!.. — My  brother,  the  apostles  celebrated  the  Lord's  Supper, 
and  we,  in  Imitation  ol"  their  example,  do  the  .same.  Hence  we  do  not  ask 
you  to  commune  wilii  us,  in  deviation  from  apostolic  example,  but  in  our 
compliance  with  it. 

Bapt  St.— My  friend,  it  is  generally  admitted  that  the  Apostles  and 
primitive  Chrisians  observed  the  rile  of  baptism,  i.  e.  immersion,  prior 
to  Ihe  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  But  as  you  have  not  followed 
their  example  in  this  respect,  we  could  not  in  co  pliance  with  your  re- 
quest unite  v\it'i  you  in  i  he  celebrniion  ol  this  ordinance.  Now  it  is  a  fact, 
that  what  cons'itulcs  the  principal  barrier,  that  liivides  the  Baptist  and 
Protestant  Pedobaptist  denonin^nions  a:  d  communion.s,  is  the  substitu- 
tion of  infard  and  aduU  rantism  (sprinkling) /w^dierej-s  boplivi  (immer- 
sion.) This  pastition  vyHl  was  ereced  by  Pedobriptists,  and  they  gener- 
ally lend  all  their  influence  In  susi   in  and  perpetuate  it. 

Presby/erian. —  Kov'%  my  friend,  do  yfui  m;'l<e  it  appear  that  the  Pedo- 
baptists  wera  the  origina-irs  of  the  barrier,  which  separates  the  Baptist 
and  PeJobaptist  deiiomin^ition-"? 

Baptist.  '  iVTy  brother,  from  what  we  have  already  said,  it  is  evidant, 
that  if  all  Christians  could  come  to  a  perfect  agreement,  as  it  regards  the 
mode,  and  vub;ects  of  baotism,  there  would  be,  there  could  be  nothing  iu 
the  ordiijance  ol'comrannion,  about  which  they  could  be  divided.  The 
Christian  church  commenced  with  the  practice  of  baptizing  (i.  e.  immer- 
sing) b'lievers;  and  she  was  bjund  by  the  commission,  and  apostolic 
example  tocon.inue  in  tiiis  practice.  Now,  as  this  is  apostolic  ground,  it 
is  plain  that  here  we  ou^ht  all  to  meet  and  unite ;  and  it  is  worthy  of  re- 
mark too,  that  so  lon:^  as  Christians  occupied  tliis  ground,  there  was  no 
divisions  in  the  church.  But  when  the  chn  rch  left  liiis  apostolic  ground, 
and  substituted  pourin?,  sprinkling,  and  infant  baptism  for  the  ordin- 
ance of  believers  bap;ism,  it  produced  contention  and  division  among  the 
true  disciples  ot  Christ.  Now,  if  this  aberration  from  apostolic  practice, 
was  the  orii;inal  cause  ofthese  divisions,  it  is  manifest,  that  it  must  still 
be  the  cau^e.  Hence,  it  is  obvious,  that  those,  and  those  only,  who  lend 
their  influence,  to  sustain  and  perpetuate  the  cause  of  these  div  sions 
among  Christians,  are  responsible  for  all  the  evils  that  grow  out  of  them. 

Presbyterian. — It  i.s  rather  hard  I  think  for  you  to   throw  the  origin  of 


121 

:he  L'ontcniions  and  divisions  uf  ihe  church  upon  Pedobaptists;  while 
Uiey  stand  ready  to  commune  with  you.  And  bL'>ides  ;  we  sincerely,  and 
conscienciously  believe  that  we  have  bsen  bnpiizod,  and  therefore  deem 
ourselves  proper  subjecis  (or  admission  lo  llie  omaiunion  table. 

Baptist.— My  trii^nd,  vje  "as  sincerely  and  con>cienciously  believe 
that  you  have  not  b.'en  baptized  ;"  and  therelbre  '  d^^em  you  improper 
subjects  for  admission  lo  the  ornraunion.''  N;)vv  does  consciencious 
sincerity  prove  thai  a  m;:n  is  in  the  righi]  If  so,  then  we  are  both  right; 
though  diametrically  opposed  to  each  other  in  our  views  of  baptism. — 
Let  us  examine  this  subji^ci:  Suppose  two  men  should  meet  each  other 
on  the  road,  within  30  miles  of  JN'ew  York,  boii.  sincerely  believing  that 
they  were  biiund  direct  to  the  ciiy,  yet  travelling;  in  opposite  directions. 
I  ask,  would  their  sincerity  i  love  ihem  both  rightl  Is  it  not  evidenc 
that  one  of  ihem  must  be  wrong]  Take  an  illusiration  from  Scripture  : 
Paul  was  equally  sincere  I efoii^,  and  after  liis  conversion;  but  did  his  sin- 
cerity prove  him  right  in  both  these  cases.  Tiie  disciples  would  not  ad- 
mit this;  for  when  he  'essayed  to  join  himself  to  them,"  they  would  not 
receive  him  till  they  were  convinced  that  he  wa.s  right  in  action,  as  well 
as  in  sincerity.  —  Finally,  it  y.ai  sincerely  believe  that  you  have  been 
baptized,  I  as  sincerely  believe  lhnt  you  hive  not  been  b.ijjiized.  Now, 
if  your  sincerity  proves  your  baptism  valid,  tor  the  same  re  son  my  sin- 
cerity proves  it  invalid.     Whit,  my  friend,  is  this  argument  worthl 

Presbyterian. — Either  someihiiig  or  nothing.  But  who  is  to  decide  in 
this  case  what  is-biptism? 

BaptisL.~W hy,  either  the  candidate,  or  the  church. —  If  the  candidate 
alone  is  to  decide  ot  the  validity  oMiis  own  bapri-m,  and  of  his  qualifica- 
tions for  church-membership  and  church  communion,  then  for  the  same 
reason,  he  alone  may  decide  of  his  qualifications  for  any  office  in  the 
church.  II  this  rigiit  be  conceded  to  the  canJidale,  of  what  use  is  the 
churchl  For  what  was  it  consiiiuted^* — That  each  member  should  con- 
trol it  according  to  h.is  own  caprice?  What  would  be  the  result  if  such 
a  principle  were  conceded  and  carried  out  in  praciicel  It  can  but  be 
evident  tliat  the  Chuicli  must  hs  the  jur'ge;  and  in  deciding  who  is  eligi- 
ide  ibr  admission  lo  the  church  or  communion,  she  must  be  governed  by 
the  scrijitarul  terms  of  admission.  Thf;se  may  be  learned  liom  the  Chris- 
tian connnission,  Matt.  28:  18—20,  and  the  practice  of  the  apostles. 

Prtsbyttnan.  —  Can  you  inlbrm  me,  my  brother,  what  was  the  practice 
of  the  apostles  ? 

Baptist.—  We  have  befor<»  shewn,  though  you  was  not  jiresent,  that 
tliey  invariaol}'  /'ollowed  their  commission,  winch  requires  faith  before 
baptism,  and  baptism  before  church  communion,  etc.  See  Ai;ts  2:  41,  42; 
8:  12;  9:  li^;  10:  48;  16:  15,  '.Vd.  This  was  their  uniform  practice,  and  there 
is  not  a  solitary  instance  on  record,  of' their  liaving  deviated  from  it.  Now, 
the  apostles  require  us  to  follow  them,  as  they  followed  Christ;  to  walk 
as  we  have  them  for  an  ensamp/e;  to  keep  the  ordinances  as  ihey  hare 
del'iere.l  them  to  us;  and  to  withdraw  ourselves  from  every  brother  that 
walks  disorderly,  and  not  according  to  the  tradition  which  we  have  received 

*  I  be!it;vc  vviUi  I^r,  Owon,  tliut  llie  end  iiiid  object  wliicli  t  lin.st  fmd  in  view,  in 
(.■onatiluliiig  and  lontiuuiiig  Ills  cliurch  on  earth,  Wi.s  to  trjiiisinit  t'roin  age  to  age  the 
purity  ot'hia  woisliip.  "For,"  says  lu-,  "those  clnirLiies  do  exceedingly  niistalte  their 
duty,  and  tlie  very  enil  of  iJi.ir  bring,  wlii.  h  liiakf  it  not  tlifir  principal  l)usiness  to 
take  care  of  tli«  due  celebration  of  tlie  worship  uliicli  the  Lord  Claist  liath  appoint- 
*i."  Ht-nco  if  we  woal.l  uccomiiljsh  this  d.siraiiii;  ohjfct,  we  see  the  importance  of 
ttrictly  adhering  to  the  liiviae  dJicctioiis,  in  the  admission  of  racrabera  to  the  church, 
and  to  its  ordinances. 


122 

from  them.  And  they  declare  in  positive  terms,  that  "  tliey  receivfld  of 
the  Lord  what  they  delivered  to  tlij  churcli,"  J  Cor.  11.  ],  2;  Phil.  3:  17; 
1  Cor.  4:  16,  J 7;  Col.  2:  5—8;  2  Tliess,  3:  G;  2:  15.  Now,  my  brother, 
it  is  evident,  f'ro;n  these  scripture  lacls,  that  Uh  ihurch  is  author  zed  by 
apostolic  example  to  admit  iuimersed  believers  into  the  church  and  to  tiie 
communion,  but  any  deviation  troin  this  would  be  a  violation  ol"  gospel 
order.  iVly  brother,  sii]jpose  tliat  a  per-on,  holding,  in  your  view,  very 
erroneous  sentiments,  should  desire  to  unite  with  yourcliurch,  would  you 
admit  liim? 

Preibijterian. —  It  would  not  answer,  my  friend,  for  us  lo  admit  a  man 
to  membership  in  liie  church  with  veiy  erroneous  sentiments;  or  merely 
because  he  thinks  he  possesses  the  requisi  e  qualifications  for  admission. 
Were  we  to  receive  members  on  this  principle,  they  might  eveniually 
become  tiie  majority  in  the  church,  and  control  the  whole  of  iis  affairs, 
and  govern  it  as  they  please  ;  or  if  they  remain  the  minority  they  might 
create  divisions  and  contentions  without  end. 

Baptist.— 'Bwi  where,  my  brother,  is  ihe  consistency  in  granting  a  per- 
son's free  admission  to  all  the  privileges  of  the  church,  without  even  sub- 
jecting them  to  eiilier  its  burdens,  or  its  discipiinel  If  it  is  consistent,  to 
admit  them  to  the  communion  table,  then  it  is  equally  as  consistent,  to  ad- 
mit them  to  regular  member.-hip  in  the  cliurch.  For  the  Lord's  Supper 
is  a  church  ordinance,  (1  Cor.  11 — 24;)  and  consequently  should  be  ad- 
ministered to  none  but  church-members.  Hence  there  is  a  manifest  in- 
consistency in  carrying  these  elements  out  of  the  church. 

But  then  I  perceive  that  you  are  not  in  favor  of  unrestricted  commu- 
nion ;  for  this  cannot  e.^ist,  so  long  as  the  difl'erent  denominations  adhere 
to  their  distinguishing  sentiments,  or  maintain  discipline  in  their  respec- 
tive churches,  or  require  the  adoption  of  their  articles  of  faith  fur  ad- 
mission to  their  church. 

Presbyterian. —  How,  my  brother,  do  you  make  it  out,  that  weaienot 
in  favor  of  free  communion,  when  we  cheerfully  inyiie  you  all  to  the 
Lord's  table] 

Bapt  St. — Suppose  that  a  candidate  should  be  refused  adrai.ssion  into 
your  church,  because  he  could  not  adopt  your  articles  of  faiih,  would  not 
this  ba  establishing  cZ(?5e  or  restricted  communioul  Again  suppose  that 
one  of  your  ministers  should  so  far  depart  from  your  faitli  and  prac- 
tice, as  to  become  a  Baptist  in  the  mode  and  subjects  of  baptism,  and 
should  still  remain  a  minisler  in  yourcliurch,  and  continue  to  preach  what 
he  deemed  truth,  and  practice  accordingly;  would  your  churches,  could 
they  fellowship  him  in  this  course?  Must  they  not  exclude  iiim,  however 
distinguished  he  may  hi  for  holiness  or  success,  or  else  dispense  with  a 
part  of  their  creed?  And  i!  they  exclude  hirn  from  the  church,  would  not 
that  be  restricted  communion? 

P resbijterian . — Most  certainly!  But  suppose  we  were  so  far  to  dispense 
with  our  creed,  as  to  retain  the  offender?  This  surely  would  not  be  close 
communion. 

Baptist. — My  friend,  if  your  church  were  to  retain  this  minister,  would 
she  noi  retain  in  her  bosom  the  very  elements  of  discord  and  disunion? 
Can  "a  house  divided  ag.iinst  itself  stand?''  "Can  two  walk  together, 
except  they  be  agreed?"  And  if  you  could  dispense  witii  tins  pai  t  of  your 
creed,  and  fellowship  this  minister,  I  see  no  reason  why  you  maj'  not  with 
t'le  same  propriely,  unite  with  the  Baptist  Church  and  fellowship  the.Ti. 
iVothing  would  liinder  but  your  mode  of  churcli  government;  and  as  that 
does  not  prevent  your  members  from  uniting  icith,  nor  your  minieteriJ  Ironj 


1'23 

becoming  pastors  of  Congregational  churches,  that  surely  could  present 
no  serious  obstacle. 

Presbi/leri'in  — I  see  plainly',  my  brother,  that  there  would  be  a  glaring 
inconsistency  in  retaining  this  minister.  Tiie  very  principle  which  we 
must  ailopt  to  do  it,  would  it  applied  eventually  overthrow  our  denomina- 
tion. 

Baptist. — My  friend,  be  cautious  in  avoiding  this  inconsistency,  that 
you  do  not  involve  yourself  in  another.  Indeed,  the  very  principles  of 
church  cornniuiiion,  adopted  by  Pedobaptists,  frequently  uivolve  them  in 
the  most  gross  incousisiencies. 

Presbtjteritm. — How  do  3'ou  make  good  th-at  statements 

Baptist. — My  Iriend,  Pedobapli^ts  and  mixed  comuiunion  Baptists,  not 
only  uuifoniily  invite  to  tlii-^r  eoriiiiiciiion  thust-  vvlioiii  tl);;y  woulii  exclude,  if  they 
were  members  of  their  cli  J  roll,  but  almost  invariably  censure  the  Baptists  IjCi^ause  they 
will  not  do  th^-  same.  As  ,cn  illiistralion,  let  us  suppose,  that  it  has  beciimi^  evident 
to  your  church,  that  thf  minister  I  inslan  -ed  must  be  excluded.  He  pleads  in  justifi- 
cation of  his  coursf,  that  he  can  find  iiothinL'  in  the  Bible  to  sau'itiun  either  infant  or 
adult  spriiLkling,  and  that  two  of  your  most  distin^juished  divines,  John  Calvin,  the 
founder  of  your  cliurcli,  and  l>r.  C'ampb,  II,  the  learned  transla  or  of  ihe  four  Gospels, 
declare  unequivocally,  that  "lli;;  word  baptizo  signifies  to  immerse,  botli  in  sacred  and 
claSsieal  authors,"  and  Calvin  adds,  that  "it  is  certain  that  immersion  Was  practised  by 
the  ancient  church,"  and  that  "  Christ  requires  tea-hing  tiefore  haptisni,  and  will  have 
believers  only  athnitted  to  baptism,"  etc.;  yet  nought  wili  avail,  and  they  exclude  him. 
Suppose  now  that  this  minister  unites  with  the  Baptists.  This  simple  act,  without 
any  change  of  sentiment,  qualifies  him  for  communion  at  the  Lord's  table -,  and  be- 
cause be  will  not  unite  with  the  very  church  that  excluded  him,  in  the  observance  of 
this  ordinance,  he  is  accused  of  being  a  bigoted  close  conmiunionist — of  "  breaking 
the  church  in  pieces,  by  contending  for  rites  and  forms,"  and  non-essentials,  etc. 

Again,  suppose  that  this  exeludeil  minister,  instead  of  uniting  with  the  regular  Bap- 
tists, should  unite  with  th- "Freewill  [mixed  communion]  Baptists,' he  could  then  take 
his  seat  at  the  communion  table  with  the  very  church  that  excluded  hnn.  Fn  this  case, 
your  church  would  coiHmune  with  their  excluded  members.  Can  ttiev  do  Uiis  with 
any  propriety? 

Now,  ray  friend,  it  is  evident,  from  what  has  already  been  said,  that  if  a  minister  or 
other  mem'oer  beexpelled  from  any  division  of  the  I'rotestant  Pedo'iapt'St  church,  for 
holding  and  promulgating  do  trines  or  sentiments  which  the  church  deem  erroneous, 
yet,  by  connecting  himself  with  a  church  that  is  systi-ntaticalh  organized, and  actively 
engaged  in  disse:ninating  the  very  same  doctrines  and  sentiments  for  which  be  was 
exclude  1,  (be  that  church  tv.dscopalian,  Methodist,  Presbyterian,  Freewill  Baptist, 
etc.)  he  inunediately  becomes  qualified,  by  this  act,  to  return  and  unite  in  a  joint-par- 
ticipation of  the  Lord's  Supper,  with  the  very  etfurch  that  excluded  him  Hence,  it  is 
obvious,  that  the  terms  of  commnnion  adoptCil  by  Pednbiiptists  may  oblige  Ihetn  to 
commune  TO-DAY  with  those,  wh  an  they  excluded  vesteudav.  What,  I  would  ask, 
can  b_>  more  palpably  absurd,  or  grossly  inconsistint  than  iliis?  How  can  jour  de- 
nomination unite  in  the  church  ordinance  of  the  Lord's  Supp^-r,  with  those  of  other 
denominations  whom  ynu  would  kxci.udr.  if  they  were  members  of  your  denomiisa- 
tion?  Or,  in  other  words,  how  can  you  fello»'slli|^  that  conduct  in  tlie  members  of 
other  denominations,  which  \<)u  cannot  fellowship  in  your  own  ?  Is  error  in  other 
denominations^  less  s'-nl'ul  or  offensive  than  in  your  own?  Or  is  its  turpitude  removed 
by  systematic  organization  carried  into  tff-ative  operation,  for  its  universal  promul- 
gation? 

Presbyterian. — Having  never  taken  ihi.s  view  of  the  subject  before,  I  am 
really  surprised  to  Imd  thai  our  principles  of  communion,  when  carried 
out  in  practice,  are  apparently  marked  with  such  gioss  inconsistency. 
Indeed,  niy  brother,  your  illustrations  have  so  shaken  my  confidence  in  the 
belief,  that  the  terms  of  our  communion  are  scriptural,  »hat  I  leel  myself 
really  unprepared  to  give  an  answer  to  your  inquiries:  and  besides,  my  bus- 
mess  is  so  urgent,  that  I  am  unJer  the  necessity  of  leaving. 

[^Biotker  T.  enters  just  as  Brother  P.  is  departing."] 

Why,  really,  here  comes  our  good  Methodist  brother  Thomas,  who  by 
the  way  has  been  immersed,  and  is  also  a  strenuous  advocate  lor  oper 
•  communion;  he  I  presume  will  take  my  place. 


124 

Baptist. — Be  seated,  my  brother.  My  friend  P,  and  I  have  been  convers- 
ing on  the  subject  of  open  and  restricted  church  communion. 

Motk'jdist  — My  brothor,  I  have  often  desired  to  converse  witli  you  on 
this  sain3  subject,  but  tiiought  it  would  appear  rather  impertinent  in  rne  to 
introduce  it.  But  as  this  seems  to  be  a  favorable  opportunity,  I  will  pro- 
ceed, by  inquirinjr:  Why  do  yoa  refuse  us,  whom  yoa  deem  baptized,  ad- 
mission to  the  communion  table  .' 

Baptist.  — One  reason  is,  because  we  consider  you  disorderlij  walkers,  in 
that  you  commune  wiih  those  whom  we  deem  unbaptized;  i.  e.  those  who 
have  only  been  sprinkled  in  ;heir  iniancy.  Nuw,  were  we  to  commune 
with  you,  we  should  virtually  sanc;ion  your  conduci,  and  thus  "express 
our  lellowship  for  inlantsprinliling  second-handed."  And  we  might  as 
well  express  our  fellowship  for  it,  to  the  Pedobapiists  themselves.  But 
why, let  me  ask,  do  yuu  not  join  ourchurchl 

Methodist. — For  the  simple  reason,  that  we  cannot  fellowship  your  doc- 
trines and  church  organization. 

^ttjtist. — For  the  same  reason  we  refuse  to  admit  you  to  our  commu- 
nion.* If  you  cannot  fellowship  a  church  in  ils  doctrines  and  organiza- 
tion, how  canyouenier  that  church,  and  unite  with  them  in  a  joint-par- 
ticipation of  the  Lord's  Supper! 

Methodist. — Our  denomination,  I  presume  you  are  aware,  are  in  favor 
of  open  CDmmunion.  Therefore  we  cheerfully  invite  you  notwithstand- 
ing our  differences. 

Baptist. — But,  My  brother,  in  doing  that,  you  not  only  violate  the  dic- 
tates of  reason  and  sound  philosophy,  but  even  the  rules  of  your  book  of 
Discipline.  For,  in  the  3-2nd  section  oi  that  book,  you  say  :  "  No  person 
shall  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  Supper  am  >nf;  us,  who  is  guilty  of  any 
practice,  for  which  we  would  exclude  a  member  of  our  church."  And  in 
the  ISth  section,  yoa  are  required  to  expel  "those  ministers  or  preachers. 
who  hold  and  conscientiously  disseminate  publicly  or  privately  doctrines 
which  are  contrary  toyour  articles  of  religion  ;"  and  by  the  7lh  section 
of  the  -ind  chapter,  to  expel  private  members  for  "  disobedience  to  the 
order  and  discipline  of  the  church,"  or  for  "inveighing  against  either 
your  doctrine  or  discipline." 

Methodist. — And  is  not  this  as  it  should  be?  Can  a  "  house  divided 
against  itself  standi"  "  Can  two  walk  togetiier  except  they  be  agreed?'' 
And  is  not  the  practice  of  excluding  for  heresy  justified  by  apostolic  exam- 
ple, and  the  concurrent  practice  of  almost  every  Christian  sect  in  the 
world  1 

Baptist. — Most  certainly!  And  I  believe  that  every  church  that  is  striv- 
ing to  keep  the  doctrines  and  ordinances  of  the  church  [)ure,  as  they  were 
first  delivered  to  the  saints,  and  who  value  truth  and  their  internal  peace 
more  than  tliey  do  numbers,  will  reject  those  persons,  whom  they  deem 

*  ''  We  doubt  whether  tlie  Methodist  denomination  can  long  retain  its  present  or- 
ganization.  The  clergy  liavc  tli.  whole  eecle.siasticiil  power  in  their  hands.  That 
the  laity,  in  tliis  repulilican  country,  liave  so  long  suliuiitted  to  tlie  absolute  sway  of 
th<j  clergy,  must  be  attributed,  partly  to  the  peculiar  character  of  tiieir  members,  and 
partly  to  the  fact,  that  this  puwi  r  has  on  the  whole,  wc  prisume,  been  wisely  and 
faithfully  employed.  As  knowledge  iiicrcasts  anioni;  the  l;iity,  they  vvill  deuiand  a 
share  iu  the  management  of  ihr  ir  concerns.  There  has  already  been  a  schism.  A 
part  of  the  JMethodists  seceded  in  1^311,  and  formed  a  constitution  and  discipline  for 
tliemselves.  They  have  adopted  th  ■  name  of  Protestast  Methodists,  discarding  the 
exclusive  sway  of  the  clergy,  and  admitting  the  laity  to  a  share  in  the  government, 
but  adhering  in  most  otiier  ri  spects  to  the  usages  of  tlie  Methodists.  They  have  now 
about  CO.OOO  members  and  they  will  undouljliuly  increase,  unless  the  Methodist  shall 
modify  their  polite."     (Christian  Keview,  vol. 2d,  p. 202.) 


125 

deficient  in  tiie  luudainenlal  doctrines  and  diiicipline  ot'tlieir  cluircli.  And 
this  surely  is  restricted  coniinunion.  But  J  am  not  tinJinjr  ;aull  vvilii  your 
rules  of  discipline,  lor  requiring  you  to  restrict  your  communion  to  thos^e 
who  coincide  with  you  in  the  "doctrines,  order,  and  discipline"  ol"  your 
ciiurcli,*  but  with  your  denomination,  lor  violating  its  plain  requirements, 
Now,  my  brother,  your  church  invite  co.nmunicanis  ol"  other  denom- 
inations, with  their  ministers,  to  uniie  with  you,  in  the  celebration  ol' 
the  Lord's  Supper;  vvlit;n,  il  those  very  persons  were  meuibers  of  your 
church,  you  would  exclude  them  trom  all  "privileges  of  society,  or  sacra- 
ments in  your  church,"  b.cause  they  "hold  and  disseminate"  "doctrines 
contrary  to  your  articles  of  religion."  Do  you  not,  in  this  manner,  pour 
contempt  upon  the  requirements  of  your  iiouk  oi'  Disciplne!  (See  iho 
22d  and  18th  sections,  also  the  7th  sec.  of  the  2d  chapter.)  Now,  how 
can  you,  with  any  .-iiow  ot'  consistency,  admit  the  members  oi'  other  de- 
nominations to  the  most  distinguished  privilege  in  the  ciiurch,  (i.  e-  the 
Lord's  Supper,)  and  lln'U  debar  them  i'rom  admission  to  regular  meniber- 
.ship  in  the  church,  men  ly  on  account  ol  a  d.fference  of  opinion,  on  points 
confessedly  of  minor  importance  ?  It'  such  persons  cunnot  be  admitted  to 
membership  in  the  churcli,  how  can  they,  in  consistency,  be  admitted  In 
the  church  ordinance  ot'  tlie  Lord  s  Supper?  Jehovah  saith,  (Lev.  24:  22) 
"  Ye  sliiJI  liuve  one  manner  of  law  as  well  tor  the  stranger  as  tor  one  ot 
your  own  country."  Honce,  if  a  Christian  brother  is  entitled  to  admis- 
sion to  the  communion  table,  lor  the  same  reason  he  is  entitled  to  eviy 
other  privilege  pei laming  to  church  membership. 

Methodist  — Do  1  understand,  then,  that  it  is  your  opinion,  that  church 
communion  ought  to  uxti  ud  only  to  those  persons  who  can  be  admitted  to 
regular  membershi])  in  the  chuich. 

Baptist  — Tliese  are  my  seniiments.  I  believe  that  this  restriction  is 
founded  in  the  very  nature  ot'  things,  ar.d  is  the  only  proper,  consistent 
boundary  to  communion.  I'hen  those  persons  who  can  be  admitted  to 
membership  in  the  churches  of  any  particular  denomination,  may  be  admit- 
ted to  the  comimtniou  in  the  churches  composing  their  own  denomination, 
on  the  same  principle  that  they,  us  members  of  one  church,  reniovs  their 
standing  to  a  sister  church  in  th''  *ame  connection. 

Methodist. — My  friend,  to  say  nothing  ot"  your  restricted  communion,  il 
is  deepl}'  to  he  regretted  that  there  are  any  obstacles  in  the  way  that  pre- 
vent the  cordial  comiiumion  of  all  evangelical  religious  sects,  but  surely 
ice  cannot  be  culpable  lor  these  obstacle-^,  while  we  cheerfully  invite  all 
these  sects  to  our  communion. 

Baptist.  —  My  brother,  we  have  before  shown,  but  you  was  not  present, 
that  the  principal  obstacle  which  prevents  a  cordial  communion  at  the 
Lord's  table,  between  the  members  of  tlie  Baptist  and  Pcdobaptist  church, 
is  the  -substituting,  by  Pedobaptists,  infanl  and  adult  ratttism  lor  bdicccrs' 
baptism;  and  so  long  as  you  with  others  practise  this  substitute,  so  long 

*  Tlie  Romun  Catholics  restriit  tht-ir  communion  to  those  of  their  own  chiircii. 
The  Episcopalians  would  ilo  the  same,  if  they  acted  in  accordance  wiih  their  senti- 
ments, for  they  will  not  admit  that,  among  all  the  Protestant  churchi  s,  themselves  e.\- 
ccpted,  that  there  is  one  ininisler  or  officer  legally  ordained,  and  iherefore  no  ordinan- 
ces duly  ailniinistered,  and  coiisequrntly  no  churi'lies  scripiurully  organized.  Heuce 
they  do  not  exchange-  pulpit  labors  with  the  uiinisteis  of  other  sects,  nor  invite  tliem 
to  take  any  part  in  their  religious  worship,  but  close  their  pulpits  against  them.  Now 
if  they  refuse  to  invite  thise  ministers  to  take  any  part  in  their  public  worship,  be- 
cause they  cannot  admit  the  validity  of  their  ordination,  how  can  they  invite  these 
same  ministers  with  their  members  to  communicate  with  them,  when,  by  so  doing, 
they  practically  admit  the  validity  of  their  bajitisra. 


1-2G 

you  will  lend  your  influence  to  perpetnute  this  obstacle;  but  when  your 
regret  shall  become  so  deep  as  to  cause  30U  to  return  to  primitive  immer- 
sion, then,  and  not  till  then,  will  you  remove  this  obstacle,  or  cease  to  be 
culpable  lor  iis  existence. 

But  in  inviting  the  members  of  all  rclijrious  sects  to  the  Lord's  Supper, 
you  are  inconsistent  with  yourself,  i.  e.  with  your  rules  ol"discipline.  How 
can  you  invite  us  to  a  joiiit-p.irticipaticn  willi  you  at  the  Lord's  Supper, 
while  you  believe  we  are  aclua'ly  eiig:i(r,Hl  in  proniulgaling  doctrines  that 
are  not  only  derogatory  t ;  God,  but  even  subversive  of  all  revealed  reli- 
gion? Such  you  represent  our  sentiments  to  be.  S'-e  3'our  tract  No.  35. 
In  that  you  itffirui  that  (lie  doctrines  which  we  hold  have  "a  djrect  ten- 
dency to  overthrow  the  whole  C'hristian  revelation:" — that  they  "repre- 
sent our  blessed  Lord  an  hypociite,  adecciver  ol  the  people,  a  man  void  oi" 
common  sinceriiy;"  and  again,  ''the  most  holy  God  as  worse  than  the  devil ! 
as  both  more  false,  more  cruel,  an.-l  more  unjust." 

Methodist  — My  friend,  as  this  tract  was  written  by  one  of  the  members 
o-f  our  church,  the  whole  dcnoininution  ought  not  to  be  lield  responsible 
f(Jr  it. 

Baplist: — i  arn  very  ready  to  acknowledge  they  ought  not  to  be,  if  it  was 
only  printed  by  him,  and  circulated  by  his  means;  but  the  truth  is,  this 
tract  vi'as  not  only  written  by  John  Wesley,  the  Ibuudfr  of"  your  denomin- 
ation, but  ills  published  under  ilie  authority  of  }'our  church,  and  ''•.irculated 
throughout  this  country  by  tnPir  means,  -flence  your  denomination  are 
responsible  for  the  statements  it  contains.  If  they  are  true,  and  we  were 
members  of  jour  church,  you  would  lie  compelled  to  exclude  us.  Hence 
3'-ou  cannot,  by  the  rules  of  your  discipline,  nor  vi'ith  any  show  of  consis- 
tency, admit  us  to  the  Load's  Supper  II  they  are  not  true,  then  you  are 
guilty  of  detraction,  and  ?<'e  could  iTot,  ev-en  by  your  rules  ot"  discipline, 
admit  you  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  until  by  a  proper  confession  you  give  evi- 
dence of  repentance.  As  we  cannot  admit  thai  these  statements  are  true, 
we  are  compelled  to  believe  that  you  have  slandered  us. 

Methodist. — Our  Pedobaptist  brethren  welcome  us  to. their  communion 
table,  and  they  hold  the  same  doctrinal  sentiments  that  you  do;  and  ought 
not  you  to  do  the  same  ? 

Baptist. — My  fiicnd,  their  practice  can  never  form  a  rule  for  our  con- 
duct. We  are  required  to-foUow  the  apostles  example,  only  so  far  as  they 
followed  Cht-ist.  We  deri  e  our  rule  f-om  our  Lord's  commis^^ion,  and  the 
apostle's  example.  By  this  we  feel  ourselvs  bound  to  regulate  our  prac- 
tice. But  weie  v  e  invested  with  the  right  to  '■  ordain,  change,  or  abolish 
rites  and  ceremonies"  in  the  church,  as  your  22d  article  evidently  implies, 
pfjrhaps  we  could  so  arraiigs  things  as  toa  Imit  all  whom  we  deem  Chris- 
tians. But  vi'e  have  never  been  invested  with  auy  such  authority,  and  we 
have  no  desire  to  be.  Tliose  who  claim  to  possess  this  legislative  power, 
ought,  in  order  to  justify  themselves  in  the  exercise  of  it,  to  show  by  in- 
contestible  ev  deuce,  that  they  received  their  credentials  Iroin  none  other 
than  Jesus  Christ,  the  Lawgiver  in  Z  on. 

But,  my  friend,  as  you  are  so  stremious  for  what  you  term  open  com- 
munion, what  happv  ri^suli,  I  would  ask,  has  it  ever  produced,  or  do  you 
expect  will  ever  be  accomplished  by  it? 

■'Methodist.. — We  expect  it  will  produce  a  generous,  fervent  charity,and  « 
kind,  fraternal  feeling  among  all  denominations  wlio  practise  it,  and  event- 
ually break  down  the  barriers  that  separate  all  these  various  sects.  . 

Baplist. — My  friend,  if  open  or  mixed  communion  would  only  break 
down  the  partition  wa'ls  that  now  separate  the  various  sects  of  Pedobap- 


127 

lists,  and  unite  tliem  harmoniously  into  one  denominalien;  or,  if  it  couIJ 
be  shown  that  it  has  any  such  tendency,  I  sliould  regard  it  fiir  more  favor 
ably  than  I  now  do.  But  judging  from  the  experience  of  tlie  past,  I  anti- 
cipate no  such  results.  Where  lias  the  practice  of  it  ahated  tlie  acrimony 
of  party  feelings,  or  ca'mi?d  down  liie  wave-  of  conllicting  sentiments, 
among  the  various  sects  that  sometimes,  tJiough  seldom,  practise  it? 
Where  has  it  ever  unito<l  iv:o  of  tJiese  sects  inlo  one,  or  even  jircvenled  di- 
visions from  arisinij  in  each  in  livi  lual  sect,*  or  so  strengthened  the  bands 
of  Christian  aff-clion  and  social  inteicourse,  as  to  lead  its  ministers  lo  a 
more  liberal  exchange  of  pulpit  labors.  Methodists  remain  Mialiodisis 
still,  for  all  that  op<m  or  mixed  communion  has  done,  and  they  pri^ac'i  as 
much  against  the  doctrines  embraced  by  Congregatiiinalists  and  Prcsbyie- 
riiuis,  as  ever,  and  so  rice  rersa-  Indeed  I  do  not  see  as  there  is  any  more 
union  of  feeling  existing,  between  Episcopalians,  Presbyterians  and  Meth- 
odists, or  even  between  the  Presbyterians  of  the  Old  and  New  School,  or 
between  tne  Episcopal  and  other  iNIethodists,  than  there  is  beiw:"on  either 
of  these  sects  and  tlie  Baptists.  Now,  until  it  can  be  sii..vvii,  that  free  or 
mixed  communion  has  a  tendency,  to  break  down  the  denominational  bar- 
riers that  separate  its  professed  friends,  or  to  produce  some  of  the  desirable 
results  alluded  to,  I  'trust  we  shall  not  be  condemned  for  not  adopting  i', 
or  lor  not  being  able  to  perceive  its  utiliiy;  especially  as  we  can  iind  noth- 
ing in  the  New  Te.>,tamenl.  to  sanction  it. 

Again,  this  mixed,  or  intercommunion  with  sects  so  diverse  in  sentiment, 
instead  of  promoting  union,  is  tlie  very  thing  that  wiU  prevent  it.  'f  his 
is  rendered  clear  from  tiie  Ibllowing  considerations.  No  individual  Chris- 
tian, that  is  governed  by  moral  sense,  will  ever  change  his  sentiments  or 
practice,  unless  he  feels  himselt'  obligated  to  do  it.  Hence  the  variou.s 
sacts  in  Christendom  can  never  become  united  in  faith  and  practice,  until 
they  feel  themselves  under  moral  obligation  tobecom-.'  so. 

Now  this  free  or  mixed  comniuiiion  virtually  declares,  and  is  admirably 
adapted  to  make  every  denomination  whicli  practice  it,  feel  that  each  has 
an  equal  right  to  his  own  cliosen  way,  however  diverse  it  may  be  Ironi 
every  other,  in  those  doctrinal  sentiments  and  duties,  vvhich  are  so  expli- 
citly revealed,  and  so  plainly  enjoined  in  the  scriptures,  ih<i,l  /winan  need  err 
tlicrcin.  Now  il'everysecl  has  aright  toils  own  way  or  belief,  then  every 
command  addressed  to  Christians,  lo  be  olonemmd,  is  rendered  nugatory, 
and  consequently  no  obligation  rest^  on  ihem  tn  become  one  in  sentiment 
and  piactice.  Hence,  too,  it  is  obvious,  that  they  will  never  become  one 
while  this  feeling  prevails.  And  as  this  lijeling  is  the  natural  product  of 
mixed  communion,  i(  is  evident,  that  so  long  ns  it  is  practised,  so  long  these 
divisions  will  continue;  hence,  we  conceive  that  it  is  the  very  thing  adapted 
to  perpetuate  these  divisions. 

*'l'lie  i'iisl)> -..ri;;!!  lUiiiLii,  alter  inucli  SL-vere  loiileiition.  lor  severs!  years,  liHS  ut 
l-iio-tli  tuirst  til.'  t).!n?l.s  tliat  bell  ti-r  together,  anl  is  now  very  equally  divul.d  liitotwo 
sects :— the  oiie  denoiiiiiKited  "Old  Soliool,"  and  tlie  t-tlirr  "T'fcw  Si  linol  "  rresbyteri- 
itns.  Rei'ciit  moveintiiis  at  the  f^outli  indicate  tliat  another  division  will  occiirrmong 
the  Xcvv  Sdiool.  on  the  subject  of  slavery. — It  is  worthy  of  note  li.re,  th;\t  the  Pres- 
hytcriiius  of  the  Old  School  have  dedured  non-f:  llowsliip  wiih  those  of  the  Ne\v. 

Si-veral  yer^rs  since,  a  v,ry  respectable  division,  in  1,'ostoii  and  other  jinrts  of  JJrssa- 
chusif.s,  styling  themselves  Unitarians,  cair.e  off  from  the  (.'ongregation.-ilis'.s 

Til-  Blitliodist  d^tioiiiination,  f>s  we  b;ive  before  rcn)::rked,  has  already  liad  a 
schism.  A  lurj;e  body  of  (on.iiiui  icants  filed  oft^from  lheu>,  styling  thtmselvcs  I'rot- 
estant  Aleihodists. 

As  far  as  liiy  e.^perieiice  goes,  tlie  ministers  of  ariy  one  of  these  vai-ious  Pciloiiaj;- 
tist  sects  do  not  exchange  with  any  other  Pedobaptiat  sect,  oftener  than  with  the  Bap- 
tist. The  Methodist  Kpiscopal  minister  of  this  place  would  not  exehanire  with  the 
ministers  of  the  other  Aluthodisc  societies,  even  if  be  would  cnmniurie  with  them. 


123 

Again.  l!jj  very  origin  of  li-oe  or  mixed  communion  shows  ihat  it  is 
wrong,  lii  apostolic  liiiie-s,  thpiv*  was  bui  on^  denj  iiiiialion;  an  J  haJ  uH 
G.iristia'is  t'.il;o.v3  I  Ciiri-t'i  dii-3^:  ons,  aal  ili' apo-tles'  exarnple,  llifre 
njvar  would  have  biea  bal  on3.  T.iiV  w3i"e  ail  raqiiraJ  to  do  tliis.  Had 
ihey  obayal  tliis  r3q:iirs;ii:!nV,  tli'^ri;  woui  1  liava  b?3!i  no  d?nomina!ional 
division-?,  an  I  consequently  no  mix;  I  comrnunion.  Froin  this,  we  per- 
cjiv3  that  inixiu  comaunion  is  an  invention  of  man — that  it  had  no  exist- 
ence in  apo-itolic  tim;.-!,  b.jt  ori'^-naiPd  in  Ihr?  dpuoiuina'ional  divisions 
caused  by  Christ  ans  disub^iienci?;  cons?q'J3ntIy  when  these  divisions 
cease,  ni'xed  comiuLinion  will  casf.  Hence  it  tollows,  that  mixed  com- 
munion is  wrong,  ;.e  ii  is  the  very  ofF-pr  ng  of  disobaJience,  and  ought  not 
therefore  to  b?  practised. 

I  would  remark  liere,  hiy  brotlier,  that  there  is  neither  precept  or  exam- 
ple in  all  the  scriptures,  to  authorize  the  tiue  church,  or  thos3  who  "keep 
the  ordinancas  as  they  were  d-livere,l,"  to  receive  to  tlie  commur.ion, 
those  Christians  who  have  departed  from  the  pretcribed  order  of  Christ's 
com:nission,  and  from  apostolic  e.xainple. 

Finally,  there  is  a  man  (est  inconsistency,  in  Pedobaptists  ©r  Bapli^jta 
inviting  different  denominalions  to  the  church  ordinance  of  communion, 
a«d  then  refusing  to  uulie  with  them  in  one  (Icnoininatioa.  This  requir 
ing  certain  quahtinatioiis  for  admiss)(nto  the  c.hurcii  ordinance  of  com- 
munion, and  very  different  on.3s  I'or  admission  to  cli'-irch  membership,  had 
no  esistertce  in  apostolc  time>,  and  conseq',:entiy  has  no  scriptura'  author- 
ity to  sustain  it.  But  if  there  be  any  scrplural  authority  for  m  xed  com- 
munion, k  there  not  the  same  scriptural  authority  lor  n)ixed  membership? 
Where  is  there  any  distinction  to  l>a  found  in  scripture?  If  apostolic  pre- 
cept "enjoins  mixed  communion,  it  also  enjoins  mixed  membeiohip  with 
all  its  train  of  ev.l«:"  but  "  if  it  do3s  not  snjoin  such  a  union  with  Pedo- 
baptists in  church  membership,  neither  does  it  authorize  their  reception  to 
commuiiion  in  a  church  eniinancc  " 

Methodls'. — Mv  friend,  I  have  never  looked  at  f/r's  subject  in  this  light 
bifore.  By  showing  tlie  origin  of  our  principles  of  communion,  and  their 
effects  when  carried  out  in  pracliie,  you  have  certainly  made  them  appear 
not  on'3'  nnreasonatiie,  but  even  very  inconsistent  with  scripture;  bo  much 
so,  that  I  am  resolved  to  re-examinj  the  subject,  !  el'ore  I  again  attempt  to 
<ieiend  it.     You  will  therefure  excuse  n}€.    ■{E.te''n<  ] 

Pcdoha.piUt. — \^'e  1.  my  friend,  as  our  Presbyterian  and  Metliodist  breth- 
ren have  left,  1  would  jast  state  that  dii-;ngt!ie  prof^ress  of  your  converea- 
tion,  in  which  I  fell  a  daip  inter -.-r,  sevoru)  oi  iJie  c>fj:clions  that  rested 
with  some  \v.  ig'it  on  my  mind,  yoa  very  satisraelorily  answered.  Still, 
as  a  whole,  lam  dissatisfied  wall  my  brethren's  defence  of  the  Pedobaptiet 
views  of  communion,  and  with  your  consent  I  should  like  to  resume  the 
conversatioti. 

Baptist. — Please  to  proceed, 

Pedobaptist. — Your  der.onil.'iut ion,  ni}' fr'end,  regard  baptism  as  a  pre- 
requi.site  to  the  Lord's  suj/p  r,  and  yet  jour  pnn  t  ce  is  so  inconsistent 
with  yo'ir  principhs,  that  you  wili not  even  comtnun?  witli  those  person?, 
beloTiging  to  Pcdobapli.st  chu.-clie?,  wlio,  in  your  jm'gmenf,  have  beeji 
baptized.     How  do  you  reconcile  your  pruciicj  with  your  princ  |)l?s; 

Baptist.— My  dear  br>)ther.  it  istrae,  we  reicarJ  bapli-m  ,ns  an  e>-5en*ial 
prereqiiisite  to  church  communion,  bat  notihi  onlv  one;  for  even  this, 
in  the  absence  of  f  :i  h  and  a  in.tnifest  Christian  w:ilk  ;:nd  character,  can 
never  in  oar  view  qu  ili.y  a  ni  a  for  church-membership,  or  ((.-r  a  par- 
.ticipaiion  wi'.h  lis  ;u  the  Lotd's  Supper.    The  reason  why   we  do  not  as- 


129 

sociate  ■with  this  class  of  persons  in  the  celebration  of  this  ortiinanee  jk- 
because  ihey  endorse  and  snnction  tl.ai  condnci  in  oi hers  which  we  be 
lieve  is  heresy  and  which  they  could  not  apjiroba:e  tliemsi  Ives  in  doing.* 
"  It  is  an  i  cKnowledi^a'd  pi  ii)cii)lc,  ih  it  volunu.ry  ;,ssoji.  tion  with  offen- 
ders, irnpliesa  sanction  oCliieir  laulls.''  It  is  on  this  principle  that  all 
church  discipline  pruceed^.  Hence  ti?  ap;)s:l-e  exhorts  us  not  to  sanction 
the  disorderly  walk  oi'onr  brethren  by  a  i  oniinuous  Jellowsliip  with  them  . 
"  Now,"  says  Paul,  "  we  coniinand  y.m  br.'ihren  in  the  name  ol  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  that  ye  u-dhdraic  ymirsclves  from  every  brother  that  waikelh 
disorderly."  And  the  Bapi  isis  I  believe  are  noi  alone  in  requiring  thai 
those  should  maintain  an  orderly  Chris  i::n  walk  to  whom  they  exteiid 
church  communion  Now  tluse  person^  who  have  truly  bei-n  bapiized, 
not  only  endorse  and  sanction  what  we  deem  erroneous  in  others,  but 
they  praciically  deny  the  seniimpni  tli;a  baptism  is  a  prerequisite  to  com- 
munion and  church  membership,  (a  seniiineni  held  bv  their  own  and 
almost  every  oilier  denomination,)  Ijy  commnning  wjih  those  whom  they 
deem  unbaptized.  Hence  the  reason  is  obvious  why  we  do  not  commune 
with  thes'  persons.  But  were  we  to  conmune  with  them  we  should  fel- 
lowship them  in  the  prrclice  of  commtining  with  unbaptized  churches. 
For  the  same  reasdn  we  could  fellowsiiip  ourselves  in  practising  inler- 
commnnioii  with  unba|iiizeil  churches. 

Fedobaplist-  My  brother,  suppose  you  were  to  unite  with  them  in 
church  communion  what  consequences  would  follow'?  Would  you  not 
thereby  exhibit  more  cf  the  Christian  Spirit  rr  d  rficction  than  yon  now 
do? 

Baptist. — Suppose  we  were  to  commune  with  them  wj  must  virtually 
acknowledge  that  the  commission  of  Chrj-t  and  the  practice  of  the  apos- 
tles are  not  sufficient  evi  ence  lo  provt  ih.ii  b.ptis!;-)  i-  a  prerrquisite  lo 
Gommunion,  and  il  th.^y  are  not  sufficiei.l  evidence  to  prove  that  position, 
then  thev  are  not  sufficient  to  prove  that  fai  h  ir  a  prerequisie  tc  baptism.! 

On  this  supposition  let  us  see  wh;t  coi  sequences  would  UL:itimately 
follow.  Now  it  is  evident  ifwe?;i\e  u;*  the  seniimer^i  lliat  baptism  is  an 
essential  prelintinary  to  (hurcii  comirunion,  fur  the  s;  nie  re.isc^n  we 
should  give  up  the  sentiment  that  faitli  is  an  in  li,  pens:  ble  qualification 
for  baptism.     And  when  these  principh  s  are  surrendered    we    have  not 

*  ScVc  ral  yciits  sii^  c  a  n  ;.n  t-  siritil  in  <,ii--  of  ilir  '.(  wis  if  Cr.liiiccti'  ut,  liy  the  nrn  c 
J.  Grunt,  wlo  li;;.i  I  ci  n  j^pi  iikli  d  in  Ins  inf;in':y,  ;  i  'I  v. :  s  tlu  n  E  mi  ii.lier  of  the  t'cn- 
gre;;ati<iniU  iliiirrli.  By  study  lust  liis  IM.Ie  Iv  1  e<i  iiu' i-iiiivinctd  that  bf.i.ieveks  arc 
tlie,  only  scri|ituiil  siil  j>  cts,  riid  in.'in  isioii  ihc  onl>  goj^p' I  lii'i'ti.>-m ;  nnd  regarding 
'juptism  us  a  pren  quisit!'  to  ci  u.iiniiiion,  Piid  hims.  If  i;s  iii.l>:iptJzf d,  \\v  could  notcon- 
fisteiitly  coii:e  to  liie  con  iniiinoii  tr.lile.  In  il.r  ni.  an  time  he  informed  his  niinister  of 
his  (  h.'hjreol'  views.  Alter  Senie  <<mversnti<-ii,  the  mmis'er,  finding  that  n(}thiiig  else 
would  Siitisfv  his  tnind.  teld  liim  that  hr  would  innierse  him.  "  t?o  tliry  lioth  went 
down  into  the  wj.ter,"  ;.iul  he  in  n.ers.  d  hins  "and  win  n  they  came  up  out  of  tlie  wa- 
ter, h  •  went  on  hi?  wny  r  joicing."  As  he  w:  s  on  his  wuy  to  meeting,  at  the  ne.\t 
communion  sojison,  lie  said  to  liin  si  If,  "  J.  Grr.it  i  ould  i.ot  eon  mune  with  J.  Grant, 
fi.  e.  with  hiinf' If,]  I  efore  .(.  Grant  wj  s  ^aI't!•/ed;  'In  nfore  li  stiiid  Jiwoy  from  the 
corr.mur.ion  !  IVew,  it"  J.  Gr!;ni  conld  nol  (firiMri  v.iih  J.  Grant  In  fore  J.  Grant 
was  baptized,  hi.w  <  an  he  coumn  n-  with  all  the  otln  r  i;  •  nilers  ef  this  cluir'h,  who 
are  in  the  same  condition  tlvit  J.  Gr;.nt  was  In  f>ur  Iii«  la[.!i>ni ,  or  in  other  words,  how 
can  J  Grant  fellowship  oth<  rs  in  do'ng  that  w  Iii  h  lee  iMild  not  f.-llowsl,ip  hin.self  in 
doing."  The  ri  suit  was,  lie  withdri  w  and  iinit»-d  with  a  Rrptist  church.  Pdow  there 
are.  multitudes  like  J.  Grant,  who  arc  in  sentiment  Baptists,  and  yet  they  arc  so  in- 
consistent as  to  unite  \\'X\.  a  rcdo|.;,ptist  1  hi:ri  h  ly  innnrsion;  and  in  thisiranner 
throw  the  whole  of  their  ii.fau  me  in  favor  of  what  tliey  di  em  error,  and  against  the'r 
own  peculi;:r  si  nnmen's. 

t  AVe  have  ?ho\i  n,  in  the  former  part  of  this  "Conversation,"  that  tlie  C'cnsmis^sioa 
ef  Christ,  and  the  i;niforni  practice  of  the  tpostles,  are  the  train  evidencesthpt  suj;-. 
port  both  of  these  positions. 


130 

only  completely  abandoned  that  beautiful,  primitive,  apostolical  mode  of 
chnrch-building  but  we  have  demolished  ihe  foundation  and  superstruc- 
ture of  our  own  denomination,  that  noble  edilice  which  ahme  is  jnodeled 
aCier  the  ap3st"lic  church.  Ilence  ii  is  perlectly  obvious  why  Pedobap- 
tists  are  generally  so  lavish  in  their  prai>es  ol  open  comuiunion.  The 
more  intelligent  part  ot  ihem  know  very  well  ihai  in  ihis  manner  they  are 
contending  most  effectually,  though  indirectly  for  their  own  views  of 
baptism.  And  .-hould  we  unite  with  them,  we  should  adopt  the  most  ef- 
fectual measures  to  exiina;uish  our  denominaiionai  principles  ;  and  con-' 
sequently  ^'tn  unai'nlalc,  as  sue),  all  I' e  I'aptisl  c'urc'ics  in  Christendom  ! 
—to  diss'o've  t'  c  only  comnmniVi  of  ChristiajiS  tv'ich  (in  the  opinion  of  Sir 
Isaac  ISiewlon,)  never  si/mbolized  wit:  te  c'urc'i  of  Rume'.-to  unchirck 
t'.e  oidij  c'lurchrs  i7i  tke world,  in  w'ich  iour  opponents  themselves  being 
judges)  the  crdinances  of  Jesus  Christ  are  kepi  as  t  ey  were  delirercd."  Nor 
is  Ihis  the  only  result,  for  if  aprsiolical  precedent  is  not  deemed  sufBcienl 
evidence  to  prove  that  baptifm  is  a  prerequisite  to  church  communion, 
then  it  is  not  >ulhcient  to  prove  that  biptismis  a  prerequisite  to  church- 
membership.  Theiefore  should  any  church  contend  that  unbaptized 
persons  should  be  admitted  to  the  communion  table,  for  the  same  reason 
thai  church  should  admit  suf*h  persons  as  regular  members  of  the  church. 
Axul  should  any  be  granted  admission  into  i he  church,  without  the  obser- 
vance of  the  lite  of  baptism,  for  the  same  re  soff,  permission  should  be 
granted  those  persons  to  remain  in  the  church  without  the  observance  of 
the  rite  of  communion.  In  this  manner  the  standing  ordinances  of  the 
gospel  dispensation  commanded  to  I'e  kept  as  they  were  delivered  may  be 
abolished  bv  our  denomination  And  if  the  Baptist  denomination  give 
up  these  ordinances  because  apostolic  example  is  not  deemed  evidence 
sufficient  for  their  observance;  for  the  same  reason  all  Pednbaptist  de- 
nominations might  give  them  up  and  we  must  then  go  over  to  Gluakerism. 
These  consequences  must  unavoid;ibly  follow,  upon  the  hypothesis,  that 
apostolic  example  is  not  conclusive  evidence,  that  baptism  is  an  indispen- 
sable qualificatiim  for  church  communion.  Hence  we  conclude  that  a 
principle  that  involves  consequences  so  preposterous,  cannot  have  iis  foun- 
dation in  truth  and  ought  not  to  beadmiiied.  Therefore  we  are  compelled 
to  admit,  as  the  only  alternative,  that  apostolic  example  does  prove  that 
baptism  is  an  indisjjensable  prerequi.'^ite  to  church  comnmnion.  Upon  this 
admission,  it  follows,  that  if  we  would  art  in  conformity  to  apostolic  ex 
ample,  and  folLovi  them  as  thcii  folloired  CIrrist,  and  kerp  the  ordivance.s  as 
they  leere  ddir-ered,  1  Cor.  11 :  I,  2,  2.'!,  we  have  no  scriptural  authority  to 
commune  at  the  Lord's  table,  with  lliose  whom  we  deem  vnhaptizcd ;  nor 
with  those,  who,  thougfli  baptized,  are  nevertheless  in  other  things  not 
conformed  to  ''the  apostles'  doctrinp  and  fellowslup."  Let  those  who  desire 
to  commune  with  us  at  ti)e  Lord's  table,  prove  to  us  that  they  have  been 
baotized,  and  that  they  are  walking  in  fiie  order  and  faith  of  the  gospel, 
an  1  we  will  most  cheerfull}'  unite  with  them  in  the  celebration  of  the 
Lord's  Supper. 

Pedob'iptist. — My  friend,  the  disastrous  consequences  which  you  have 
shown,  would  inevitably  follow,  by  giving  u~"p  the  principle  that  baptism  is 
a  prerequisite  to  communion,  whicJt  you  must  do,  in  order  to  commune 
with  us,  proves  conclusively  tliat  you  have  adopted  the  only  reasonable 
course.  I  perceive,  also,  that  in  censuring  you,  we  condemn  ourselves; 
for  we,  as  a  denomination,  commune  with  only  those  whom  we  deem  bap 
tized,  and  you  do  the  same.  Novv,  I  am  thoroughly  convinced,  that  j-our 
general  principles  of  communion  are  correct,  but  then  there  are  several 
objections  which   I   have  frequently  heard  urged   against  restricted  com. 


131 

municn,  which  I  have  never  heard  satisfactorily  answered.  "How  can 
you  lellowship  Cliristians  and  Christian  ministers,  in  prayer,  praise,  and 
preaching,  and  yet  not  admit  them  to  coniniunion?" 

BaptUt. — "For  this,  niy  :riend,  weha\p  scriptural  authority,  in  the  ex- 
hortation of  Paul:  'Whereto  we  have  already  attained,  let  us  v\alk  by  thi.- 
«ame  rule,  let  us  mind  the  same  tfiing.'  We  have  attained  to  an  agree- 
ment in  pray.ng  to  the  same  God  and  Father  ot  all;  and  al>o  in  preachinjj 
the  gospr"!  of  his  Son  Jesus  Christ;  but  we  have  not  attained  lo  an  agree- 
ment respecting  ihesuljects  and  mode  of  baptism,  nor  in  the  visible  qualifi- 
cations ol"  coiiimun.canis  at  the  Lord's  table." 

Pediibuptist. — My  iriend,  your  answer  appears  very  satisfactory,  "but 
do  you  not,  by  your  course,  unchurch  other  denominations,  and  say,  they 
are  not  cliurclies  of  Christ?" 

Bajjlist. — "We  do  not  say  they  are  not  churches  of  Christ.  True,  dis- 
tinguished iVdopabtisis  have  said,  '■  loUcre  there  is  no  baptism,  there  are  no 
visihlt  cUi, relics;'  *  but  we  regard  it  as  sufficient  lor  us,  to  say  of  those 
brethren  wiio  do  not  administer  the  ordinance  according  to  the  law  of 
Christ's  k  ngdom.  tlial  thost  churches  are  not  ngnlarly  constituted.'^ 

Pedubupiist. — My  broiiier,  whetfier  our  churches  are  regularly  consti- 
tuted or  not,  one  iliing  is  certain,  we  are  commanded  to  be  followers  or 
imitators  of  God,  Eph.  5:  1,  a.'id  he  you  know  communes  with  all  Chriv- 
tians. 

Baptist. — My  iriend,  1  am  very  willing  to  admit,  that  we  are  commanded 
to  be  followers  (imitators)  of  God;  but  it  does  not  follow,  from  this  fact, 
that  he  communes  with  i>r  fellowships  all  Christians,  whether  obedient  or 
disobedient;  lor  if  he  does  this,  tlan  it  iiiainly  lollows  that  he  fellowships 
us  in  obs.'rving  befever's  imme  sion  exclusively,  and  m  rejecting  all  Pedo- 
bapiists  Iroiii  the  communion  table,  en  I  also  that  you  are  bound  to  do  the 
same;  so  that  the  very  dijection  3'ou  .irge  aiainst  our  peculiar  senti- 
ments and  practice,  proves  that  you  are  bound  to  fellowship  us,  in  those 
sentiments  and  practice. 

Pedobaptist. — I  perceive  that  my  objection  is  wrong,  for  't  is  based  upon 
the  assumption,  that  God  comnmnes  witli  all  Christians,  whether  right  or 
wrong,  and  if  he  were  to  do  this,  he  would  approbate  the  icrmigas  well  as 
the  rigid,  which  would  plainl}'  contradict  his  revealed  will  But  I  ])resume 
that  you  will  grant  that  we  are  obligated  to  follow  God  in  fellowshipping 
all  Christians,  in  those  acts  in  which  he  fellowships  them.  Now,  my 
brother,  have  you  any  evidence,  that  the  Baptists,  in  the  observance  of 
their  pecu.iar  sentiments,  are  imitators  o;  followers  of  Christ,  and  that  the 
Pedobapiists  are  not;  or  that  Christ  fellowships  the  Baptists  as  Baptists, 
and  that  he  does  not  lellowship  the  Pcdobaptists  as  Pedobapiists? 

Baptist. — As  we  are  commanded  to  follow  Christ,  it  is  plain  that,  as  he, 
and  the  apostles  who  followed  his  example,  went  down  into  llie  water, 
and  were  baptized  (immersed)  before  tliey  celebrated  the  Supper,  we  are 
obligated  by  the  command  to  follow  their  example;  and  if  any  Christian 
(though  a  Pedobaptist)  is  unwilling  to  do  this,  God  cannot  iellowship  him, 
in  this  act  ol  disobedience;  and  hencs  it  follows,  that  ice  have  no  right  to 
doit.  Now.  ii  ij  a  fact  that  God  places  the  broad  seal  ol  his  approbation 
UDon  the  delightful  primitive  oidinance  of  believer's  immersion,  by  blese- 
ing  it  not  only  to  the  conviction  and  conversion  ol  many  souls,  but  to  the 
unspeakable  joy  ami  peace  of  mind  of  multitudes  who  literally  observe  it. 
This  wedeem  strong  corroborative  evidence,  that  he  fiellowships  those  who 
observe  it.    (See  Ps.  51:   12,  13.)     At  the  same  time,  he  withholds  the 


132 

Spirit's  convicting  influence,  in  tlie  observance  of  (Calvin's  substitute)  in- 
fant anrl  a'ult  sprinkling,  wliich  we  tliink  is  strong  collaieral  evidence, 
that  he  does  nut  lellousliip  it;  and  if  he  docs  not  /ei]owsJii|)  it,  we  tiave 
no  right  tod  it.  Now,  my  brother,  if  you  and  all  other  Pedrbaplists  were 
to  iiiiiiate  Ciirist's  example  in  this  respect,  we  should  all  coniinunt'  togeth- 
er, not  onlv  in  the  ordinance  ol  baptism,  but  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  the 
close  C(iinin.::nioii  about  which  you  complain,  would  loiever  cease  to  exist. 

Ped  ihtiptist  — But,  n)y  brother,  you  know,  on  a  certain  occasion,  Christ 
ordert-l  his  disciples  nol  to  forbid  one  casting  out  devils  who  followed  not 
after  ili?iii 

Baptist. — \Ty  friend,  it  is  evident  that  the  apostles  ]jad  received  no  au- 
thority, fur  prohibiting  tiiC  man's  casting  out  devils,  or  lor  ordering  him  to 
follow  tli^iM;  but  Christ  has  authorized  his  churches  and  ministers,  "to 
conl.'nd  farni^slly  lor  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints,"  and  to  teach 
Christians  '-to  observe  all  thnigs  wha  soever  he  has  coniinanded."  Final- 
ly, my  broiher,  reiiising  Pedobaptists  admission  to  th»  communion  table, 
is  not  ;orb:ddiiig  th'm  to  preach,  and  pruy,  and  do  all  the  good  they  can. 

Pelohiiptist — Bit,  my  broth  r,  you  know  it  is  said:  ^'  Tiie  communion 
is  th:'  Lord  s  lable,  and  therefore  you  liave  no  right  to  forbid  or  hinder  any 
of  his  children  ifoni  com  iig  to  it/' 

Baptist  — That  it  is  the  Lord's  table,  we  are  very  willing  to  grant; 
there  ore  we  ur-'  bound  to  oLsprve  the  rules  he  Las  {iiven  us,  touching  the 
requisite  qi!nli(icalions  lor  a  Iriiission  10  this  least.  Were  the  table  ours, 
we  coul  1  inv.te  whom  we  please,  without  a n3' regard  to  baptism.  And 
we  do  now  mo-t  ch"'erfuily  invite  all  real  Christians  to  the  Lord's  table, 
but  we  invJtethem  first  to  baptism,  agreeably  to  the  commission  of  Christ 
and  ajioslo!  c  example.  And  unless  it  can  be  shown  from  the  scriptures, 
that  unhaptized  persons  were  admiifed  to  tlie  cuinmunion,  in  the  primitive 
apostolic  Imrches,  we  mi:stsiill  believe,  that  we  have  no  scriptural  war- 
rant for  inviting  si.ch  We  have  shown  that  there  i  no  more  impropriety 
in  admitting  unbapiized  pe rsrns,  to  regular  membership  in  the  church, 
than  there  is  in  admitting  I  hem  to  the  communion. 

2.  If  the  "  communion  is  the  Lord's  table."  the  church  's  the  Lord's 
house.  Now  almost  all  denominations  are  .greed  thai  baptism  is  the  door 
or  pa-sage  appoinlea  by  Christ,  ior  entering  this  spiritual  liuilding;  and  no 
denomina'ion  admits  any  onp  as  completely  a  member  of  this  household  of 
fai;h,  who  has  not,  in  their  view,  passed  through  th  s  door.  Hence,  we 
cheerfully  invite  all  believers,  who  desire  ta  participate  with  us  in  the  pro- 
Tisions  of  his  table,  to  come  in  through  this  dooroi  the  Lord — th  s  Grecian, 
apostolc  porch — this  highway,  cast  ui^  lor  the  ransomed  to  walk  in.  Now, 
my  brother,  il  any  believers  still  refuse  to  acce|)t  of  this  tree,  full,  and 
scriptural  invitation,  to  come  in  throUL'h  this  apostolic  passage,  because  it 
IB  not  modeled  to  suit  their  fancy  or  convenience,  who  is  to  blame  if  they 
continue  without,  and  do  not  partake  of  the  provision-  of  bis  tiible?  Cer- 
tainly we  are  not;  for  we  had  nothing  to  do  with  niodelins  this  building: 
that  was  done  by  Htm  who  "is  too  wisi-  to  err,"  even  our  Master  Jesus 
Christ ;  and  he  has  given  us  no  authority  to  construct  a  side  entrance,  in 
the  Roman  style,  in  deference  to  the  m°re  fancy,  ;  nd  lor  the  accommoda- 
tion of  Christian  strangers; — thus  granting  them  a  privilege,  which  we 
deny  all  who  wish  to  become  members  of  our  household. 

Finally,  my  brother,  if  it  follows  that  because  the  communion  is  the 
Lord's  table,  and  the  church  the  Lord's  house,  therefore  every  believing 
ehild  of  his,  has  a  right  to  enter  this  house,  in  deviat  on  from  his  prescribed 
requirements,  and  partake  of  the  provisions  of  his  table,  then  with  equal 


133 

propriety  it  will  follow,  that  because  the  "earth  and  the  fulness  thereof  is 
the  Lord's,"  therefore  every  one  of  his  ch  Iclren  has  a  right  to  enter  any 
enclosure,  and  partake  of  the  fruits  of  the  earth,  and  appropriate  liie  cattle 
to  his  own  use,  in  deviation  from  his  r»^qu  reiiients. 

Pedohaptist.-^^'We  shall  all  commune  together  in  Heaven,  and  ought 
therefore  to  cominune  together  on  earth." 

Baptist.  —  My  b'other,  we  shall  all  join  one  denomination  in  Heaven,  and 
ought  therelore  to  do  it  on  earth.  All  Christians  in  Heaven  obey  the  com' 
mands  of' God,  and  if  they  would  do  it  here,  the  Bapli-t  denomination  would 
gladly  receive  them  lo  ihe  Lord's  table.  Again,  ''theiniiab  tanis  oi  Heaven 
have  no  kind  of  communion  with  an)'  who  are  not  admitted  into  the  heav- 
enly church.  Hence,  we  act  i?ontrary  to  the  spirit  of  Jieaven,  whenever 
we  commune  with  any  wh.^m  we  will  not  admit  into  the  gospel  church. 
Therefore,  the  example  of  the  saints  in  heaven,  does  not  t'-ach  us  to  vio- 
late the  prescribed  (.rJer  of  Christ's  institu.ions.  by  inviting  unbaptized 
persons  to  the  communion."  Hence,  it  is  obvjout^,  that  the  blaui'' rests 
on  those  wlio  dep.irt  from  the  gospel  order,  and  Ibrsake  "the  apostles'  doc- 
trine and  fellow  hip." 

2.  My  brother,  as  the  church  on  earth  is  differently  organized  from  the 
church  in  lieaveii.,  it  must  be  evident  to  any  one,  that  there  is  a  manifest 
incongruity  in  arguing  from  heaven  to  earth.  "  Jn  the  admisson  of  mem- 
bers to  thi^  celestial  church,  Christ  acts  as  a  Sovereign;  in  llie  admi.-.sion 
•  of  members  to  Christi'in  churches  on  earth,  w  p  must  act  as  servants — 
yielding  implicit,  wndevialing  obedi?nce  to  the  directons  of  our  sovereign 
Lord.  The  communion  of'  'the  just  ma<ie  perfect,'  in  the  heavenly  church, 
will  not  consist  in  partaking  ol  the  symb'jls  of  Christ's  death;  but  in  high 
and  spirifiia!  intercourse;  in  mutual  expressions  of  adiiration  and  giatiiude 
while  reviewing  Ihe  dispen.-ations  ol  providence  and  grace  towards  them 
in  this  World;  in  mingled  songs  of  praise  to  Him  who  hath  washed  them 
from  their  sins  in  his  own  blood;  and  in  exalted  conver&e  cnncorning  the 
glorious  scenes,  which  the  revolutions  of  etern.ty  wdl  be  continually  un- 
folding to  their  deliirhted  gaz '.  We  rejoice  in  the  blissl'ui  ant  cipation  of 
this  communion.  But  we  are  not  willing  to  wait  untd  that  period.  We 
would  enjoy  here  an  earnest  of  that  sublime  and  celestial  intercnnrse. 
We  plead  I'or  a  communion  on  earth,  with  Christians  of  every  sect,  which 
shall  bear  a  reseuiblance  to  that  cf  heaven.  In  such  communion  as  this  all 
men  may  partake,  without  ever  silting  at  the  table  ol'  our  Lord. 

Pedobaptist. — My  friend,  a  sense  of  duty  constrains  me  lo  acknowledge 
that  you  have  not  only  conclusively  ard  satisfactoiily  answered  my  objec- 
tions, but  fully  convinced  me,  that  your  practice  of  restricted  communion, 
is  in  exact  harmony  with  the  great  law  of  the  commission,  and  with  the 
practice  of  the  apostles  and  primitive  ;hiirches. 

But,  my  lirulher,  I  firul  nothing  in  tin?  |)r^•cepts  unit  cxnn;>ple  of  Christ  ."iirt  tlie  aooB- 
tles,  to  ii'ittioi  ize  orsaii -tion  tlinsc  (lenoininiitionul  divisions  whioli  now  exist  among 
the  Red.'eiue  I;  Imt,  on  tlie  coniniry,  tiiey  require  ull  Christians  to  heli  -ve  the  same 
truths,  R  iiu.  1:  10 ;  to  follow  the  sam^-  e.xiiiiipip,  K[ili.  5:  1-,  to  j>crfi)rm  tl:e  snnie  duties, 
Matt.  7:  \i\  to  contend  for  the  sunip  fai'h,  Jude  3;  to  k;  ep  thesrimv  ordinances,  and  that 
too  as  tli.-y  wen-  dilivered,  1  t'or.  1 1:  "2;  to  spealc  the  same  thing-,  to  I  e  perle  tly  joined 
together  in  the  same  mind  and  same  jiidgnient,  I  Cor.  1:  10;  and  in  fii  e  to  o'serve  all 
things  wliatsoever  '  hrisi  ha=  comm.-nded,  M;.tt.  -19:  20.  Indeed,  the  whole  trnor  of  the 
New  Testament  evi  leutly  goes  to  show,  that  all  Christians  are  required  to  le-oine  on« 
in  sentiment  and  pra'  ti  e,  and  lons.-qu  iitly  one  denoinin.ation.  (■■sei-  M;  n.  5:  "29;  15:  9; 
Rom.  6:  17;  Knh.  4:  .•}— 6,  1:1:  Phil.  I:  27;  -2:  2;  Thes.  i:  (5;  Titus  1:  13;  Petrr  4:  U.)— 
Whm,  my  brother,  sh;,Il  these  pai  titioii  walls  be  d.  .mo'ishrd?  IVIrst  they  always  stand? 
Is  not  the  time  conins,  when  these  "divisons  shall  re;ise, — when  we  shall  see  eye  to 
eye,  and  litt  up  the  voii-e  togethc,  and  speak  the  same  thliiF,  in  one  spirit,  with  one 
uisd,  striving  together  for  the  faith  of  the  gospel  ?"    Is  not  this  happy  state  of  things 


134 

held  forth  in  propecy?  Has  it  not  been  guarantied  by  promise?  Did  not  our  Saviour 
pray  for  it?  Have  we  indeed  any  reason  to  doubt  that  it  will  be  accomplished  7  What 
Christian  object  should  the  church  more  devoutly  labor  and  pray  for,  tlian  ibis?  What 
one  is  more  dt'sirable?  AVhat  would  more  impressively  convince  the  world  of  the 
truth  of  Christianity,  than  to  see  all  evangelical  denominations  unitin;;  onilie  princi- 
Iiles  of  ihe  trospel  7  Is  there  no  ground,  my  lirother,  on  which  this  union  may  now  be 
consummated  without  any  sacrifice  of  piinciple  or  truth7 

Baptist. — My  brother,  your  queries,  the  pi-ecepts  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  the  waste  places  of  Zion,  show  the  importance  of  a  visible  union 
among  the  evangelical  friends  oi'  Christ.  Tou  inquire  if  these  partition 
walls  shall  always  siaiid.  My  desire  and  prayer  to  God  for  Israel  is,  that 
they  may  not;  and  I  believe  there  is  grou'.id,  even  now,  on  which  we  can 
all  meet,  without  any  compromises  of  truth  or  duly.  As  tar  as  my  knowl- 
edge extends,  the  Ba.ptist  denomination  are  ready  and  willing  lo  make 
every  sacrifice  they  can,  except  conscientious  principle,  for  the  sake  of 
j)romoting  the  general  union  and  communion  of  the  godly.  This  they 
cannot  sacrifice;  nor  can  any  one  reasonably  ask  them  to  do  it.  Now  if 
the  Pedobaptists  were  willing  to  do  the  same,  we  might  all  become  one 
denomination,  and  we  believe  they  are  bound  by  apostolic  example  to 
do  it. 

Pedobaptist. — How,  my  brother,  do  you  make  (his  appear? 

Baptist. — Paul,  you  know,  on  a  certain  occasion,  said,  "if  meat  make 
my  brother  to  ofTmd,  I  will  eat  no  more  meat  while  the  world  slandeth." 
To  partake  of  meat  was  evidently  a  gratification  to  the  a|)ostle;  but  he 
was  willjr.g  to  forego  or  sacrifice  that  gratification,  as  it  was  no  sacrifice 
of  principle,  provided  it  caused  "his  weaker  brother  to  offend."  Now, 
ray  brother,  are  we  not  bound  to  follow  the  apostle's  example,  and  to 
adopt  the  same  principle  that  he  did,  when  by  thus  doing  we  not  only  re- 
move the  stun)bling  blocks  ol  ofi:eiice  frotn  the  path  of  our  brethren,  but 
take  the  most  effectual  means  lo  produce  :i  visible,  cordial  union  and  com- 
munion among  (Christians  of  all  evangelical  denominations? 

Pedobaptist  — Most  certainly,  I  think  we  are;  and  it  must  be  evident, 
my  friend,  that  every  denomination  of  Christians,  that  is  unwilling  to 
make  every  sacrifice  they  can  conscientiously,  to  bring  t^'-^it  so  de':-'ra- 
ble  a  result,  do  not  really  deprecate  or  lament  the  evils  which  imcurally 
grow  out  of  the  many  divisions  of  the  church;  but  actually  prefer  disun- 
ion to  unioii,  even  when  the  latter  could  be  purchased  without  any  sacri- 
fice of  principle.  Can  any  denomination,  that  takes  such  ground  as  this, 
duly  appreciate  the  importance  of  the  union  and  peace  o(  the  church?  But 
as  yon  stated  that  you  believed  that  there  is  ground,  even  now,  on  which 
we  can  all  unite,  without  any  sacrifice  of  principle,  I  should  like  to  have 
you  point  it  out. 

Baptist — Our  denomination  and  the  Pedobaptists  are  agreed  as  it  res- 
pects the  terms  of  communion  at  the  Lord's  table.  The  only  disagreement 
that  exists,  is  respecting  what  constitutes  Christian  baptism.  If  we  were 
agreed  in  this,  we  might  become  one  denomination.  The  Baptists  be- 
lieve tliat  immersion  is  the  only  valid  baptism,  the  Pedobaptists  that  either 
immersion,  pouring  or  sprinkling  is  equally  valid,  and  that  baptism  is  non- 
essential. It  is  perfectly  clear,  then,  that  the  Pedobaptists  can  all  submit  to 
immersion,  and  thattoo  without  sacrificing  any  principle,  and  then  we  could 
all  unite  in  communion  at  the  Lord's  Supper.  But.  ray  brother,  we  have 
shown,  we  think,  conclusively,  that  if  we  were  to  commune  with  Pedo- 
baptists, we  must  either  embrace  their  sentiments,  or  adopt  principles, 
which,  if  carried  out  by  all  denominations,  would  annihilate  all  gospel  or- 
dinances, and  carry  us  over  unavoidably  to  Quakeriam.     They  can  adopt  a 


135 

course*,  as  we  have  shown,  which  wo  ild  require  no  sacrifice  of  principle, 
and  then  w  ■  could  ail  c'>inmune  logeiher,  and  I  believe  that  tlie  example 
of  Paul  obligates  them  to  do  this.  1  am  also  lully  convinced  lliat  if  all 
Christians  could  b?  brought  to  love  each  oIIut  with  pure  hearts  lervently, 
that  prejudices  would  vanish,  parlilion  walis  would  be  denioli.-licd,  and 
all  would  not  only  be  willing,  but  joyfully  adopt  lli's  .'ue  baplistn,  Epii. 
4:  J,  tliat  we  might  "have  one  boiy,  one  spirit,  one  Lord,  one  fath,  one 
baptism,  one  God  and  Father  of  all,  whoi>  ai.ove  us  all,  and  through  us  a!), 
and  in  us  all  '  Such  a  stale  of  things  as  this  "  is  a  consummaJun  de- 
voutly 1o  be  wished."  Nothing  perhaps  would  go  I'arther  to  convince  the 
world  of  the  truth  of  Christ ianity.  This  would  cause  them  to  exclaim, 
"behold  how  these  Christians  love  one  another." 

Now  if  your  denomination,  who  regard  baptism  as  nonessential,  and 
feel  indifferent  whether  pouring,  sprinkling,  or  immersion  be  observed,  (re- 
garding :ill  of  these  modes  ol  applying  water  as  equally  valid.)  are  not 
willing  to  adopt  that  one  baptism  in  which  we  all  can  unite,  I  jisk,  on 
whom  ri'sts  the  guilt  of  ''brealiing  the  church  in  pieces,  by  contend  ng  for 
rites  and  forms,"  or  nonessentials  and  costume  in  religion?"  Who  are 
actually  responsible  lor  these  divisions,  and  the  close  or  n  stricted  commun- 
ions, about  which  there  lias  been  so  much  noise;  those,  who  with  the 
Christian  world  on  their  side  for  thi"  teen  centuries,  believe  that  immersion 
only  is  baptism,  ai  d  consequently  cannot  practise ''ither  pouring  or  sprink- 
ling; or  iho^e,  who,  while  they  admit  thai  immer.-ion  is  l)apti.--n),  yet  nev- 
ertheless Will  not  practise  it,  when  they  are  well  aware,  that  by  so  doing, 
they  would  not  only  terminate  close  communion,  hut  break  down  the 
principal  barrier  that  separates  the  Baptist  and  I'edobapiistdcnominaiions. 
Pedohaptist. — Your  arguments,  my  iriend,  Imve  finally  convinced  me, 
notwithstanding  all  that  has  been  said  against  your  denon.ination's  being 
close  couimunionisis,  that  the  sin  of  close  conmjunion  lies  at  the  Pedobap- 
tists'  door;  hence  1  have  resolved,  in  my  own  mind,  to  be  baptized  the  first 
opportunity  that  occurs,  for  I  am  delerminded  that  nij'  example  shall  go 
no  farther,  either  to  countenance  or  perpetuate  close  communion.  You 
have  now  advanced  your  nost  weighty  arguments,  I  suppose,  to  prove  that 
it  is  the  duty  of  all  believers  to  be  inuncrsed. 

Baptist. — By  no  means,  my  brother;  we  could  pass  by  every  argument 
that  we  have  adduced,  to  prove  that  the  imiiiersion  of  a  believer  only  is 
scriptural  baptism,  and  even  admit  (what  cannot  be  proved)  that  your  ar- 
guments, advanced  to  prove  infant  and  adult  sjiringling,  gospel  baptism, 
are  as  conclusive  and  valid  as  our  own  urged  against  it,  and  then  prove  in- 
contestibly  that  every  Pedobaptist  believer,  in  health,  is  bound  by  reason, 
philosophy,  wisdom,  sound  logic,  and  common  sense,  to  be  baptized  (im- 
mersed.) if  he  has  never  observed  this  rite. 

Pedobaptist. — Indeed,  my  Iriend,  I  do  not  ste  how  you  can  af  niit  that 
our  arguments  in  favor  of  sprinkling  are  as  conclusive  and  valid  as  yours 
against  it,  and  then  prove  inconteslibly,  that  reason,  wisdom,  prudence, 
etc.  proclaim  that  it  is  the  duty  of  every  Pedobaptist  to  be  immersed? 

Baptist.  —  My  brother,  I  prove  this  by  analogy.  Suppose  that  a  man  is 
very  sick,  and  a  council  of  physicians  are  called,  who,  on  consultation, 
come  to  a  perfect  agreement  as  it  respects  the  nature  of  the  man's  disease, 
and  the  medicine  to  be  administered.  The  servant  is  despatched  to  the 
apothecary  to  obtain  the  medicine;  soon  he  returns  with  three  boxes  of 
pills,  ])urporting  to  be  the  saine  medicine,  and  says  that  the  apothecary 
purchased  them  for  the  same,  (though  they  differ  somewhat  in  appearance,) 
and  that  the  Doctors  can  take  their  choice  of  the  boxes.     The  attending 


136 

pliysician  opens  one  of  the  boxes,  and  passes  it  round  to  each  of  the  phy- 
.sicians,  with  llie  individual  inquiry,  are  these  the  genuine  pills.  Doctor? 
Their  replies  advertise  him,  that  a  part  of  them  believe  that  tliey  are 
the  genuine  ined  cine,  and  the  other  part  that  they  are  not.  He  opens  the 
second  box,  and  passes  it  round,  when  he  finds  tliat  they  are  again  divided 
in  opinion  precisely  as  at  first  He  then  opens  llie  third  box,  and  institutes 
the  same  individual  inquiry  as  before,  when  he  is  apprised  by  their  replies 
that  they  are  unanimous  in  the  b  diel',  tiiat  this  box  contains  the  genuine 
pills.  He  also  gives  it  as  his  opmion,  that  this  box  only  contains  the 
genuine  medicine.  He  now  asks  the  patient  which  ot  the  boxes  of 
pills  he  will  taiie,  as  the  servant  is  to  return  the  other  two.  The  patient, 
instead  of  giving  a  direct  reply,  addresses  him  as  follows:  "Do  you.  Doc- 
tor, sipcerely  and  conscientiously  believe  that  the  two  first  boxfis  of  pills 
examiiifd,  are  not  genuine?  They  say  that  those  are  more  palatable  and 
easier  to  take.  Would  you  not  take  them,  vi'ere  you  in  my  condilion?" 
"I  would  nol,  I  could  not  take  them,  were  I  in  your  condition,"  replies  the 
attending  phy^ician,  "for  I  do  sincerely  beiieve  that  they  are  not  the  right 
medicine."  "Well  then.  Doctor,"  says  the  patient,  "as  you  are  all 
agreed  that  one  of  these  boxes  contains  the  geimine  pills,  I  will  therefore 
take  that,  for  I  am  resolved,  that  J  will  never  lake  a  questionable, 
douhtfid  incdidne,  when  J  can  take  an  vnrjucslionable  medicine.  I  will 
never  run  tlie  hazar.l  of  going  wrong,  when  I  may  be  sure  of  going 
right;  lience,  as  I  wish  to  stand  on  the  safe  side  of  tiie  hedge,  I  will  take  the 
medicine  which  you  ail  agree  is  genuine."  I  ask  now,  if  this  man  has  not 
acted  prudently,  wisely  and  conscientiously.  Would  he,  could  he  have 
acted  thus,  had  he  taken  the  questionable,  doubtful  medicine?  Now,  my 
friend,  this  is  a  correct  representation  of  the  bapti.-nial  controversy.  A 
part  of  the  Clir. stian  world  believe  that  pouring  or  sprinkling  is  valid  bap- 
tism— the  other  part  thai  they  are  not-  But  all  agree  that  immersion  is 
valid  ljd|:tisin.  Hence  it  is  perfectly  oovious,  to  say  the  least,  that  pour- 
ing or  sprinkling  is  questionable,  doubij'iil  baptism,  and  that  immersion  is  un- 
questionable baptism  Now,  will  a  believer,  who  sincerely  wishes  to  obey 
the  command  ol  Christ,  in  the  ordinance  of  b;iptisin,  observe  the  question- 
able rite  of  sprinkling  or  pouring,  when  he  might  observe  the  unquestiona- 
ble and  primitive  rite  of  immersion?  Will  a  man  be  sure  he  obeys  Christ 
in  this  ordinance,  or  will  lie  run  ihe  hazard  of'  disobeying? 

Pedobaptist. — My  friend,  you  have  proved  conclusively,  and  to  my  entire 
satisl'arliD.i,  lliiit  ii  is  tlie  [iluiii  duty  of  every  Peclo!i;'.|ilist  I  elievcr,  to  observe  tlie  un- 
ques  ioiMlilc  rite  of  iuiiiiersiDii,  whicli  is  talking  'tlie  safe  side  of  'lie  li.iptisniul  ques- 
tion, luid  that  every  one,  vvlio  observes  tfie  questionalile  rite  of  sprinliling  or  pouring, 
taltes  tilt'  uiis.ife  side,  and,  to  say  ttie  leiist,  runs  tlie  fiazard  of  not  only  violating  the 
coniniiind  of  Christ,  iiut  of  teaching  others,  liy  his  tJir.mple,  to  do  the  same.  And,  in 
view  of  your  illustrations,  I  do  not  see  how  any  candid  ni:in.  can  observe  tlie  question- 
able rite  of  sprinkling  an  I  pouring  Uut  suppose  1  slionld  reply  to  your  argument  in 
the  langu.-ge  of  my  Pe  lobaptist  frii-mls,  when  driven  to  the  extreme:  "that  baptism  is 
nonesseiiti;il,"  or  at  least,  '   it  is  not  a  saving  ordinance." 

Baptist. — Am  I  to  infer,  nij'  brother,  that,  as  baptism  is  not  a  saving  or- 
dinau'  e,  iherefore  it  is  of  no  eoiisequenee  whether  it  be  rightly  observed  or  not? — that 
we  are  un  ler  obligation  lo  observe  only  those  precepts,  llie  neglect  of  which,  we  are 
sure  would  ruin  our  souls?  Are  we  not  bound  to  yield  implicit  obedience  to  every 
eommand  of  Christ ? — to  keep  all  his  "ordinances  as  they  wf.ke  petivered?"  Did 
not  he  who  enjoined  this  ordinance  say,  "  If  ye  love  me,  keep  my  commandments?" 
and  again,  "then  are  ye  my  friends,  if  ye  do  wliatsoever  I  command  you?"  plainly 
implving.  that  if  we  do  not  his  commands,  we  are  not  his  friends.  Now  we  havs 
shown,  we  think  con  lusively,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  every  believer,  to  be  immersed, 
who  would  act  as  prud.  ntly  and  wisely,  in  obeyingthe  command  to  be  baptized,  as  he 
would  act,  where  his  temporal  iiiten  st  is  concerned  What  evidene*  ,  then,  have  those 
persons  who  practice  sprinkling  for  baptism,  to  show  that  they  are  actually  the  friends 
ef  Christ.    Finally,  my  brother,  if  all  Christians  were  assured  that  they  could  not  b» 


137 

saved,  unless  they  were  aiHually  bapiizeJ,  how  many  do  you  suppose  v.ould  prac- 
tise either  pourins  or  sprinkling. 

PedobaptisL. — I  prest  ine  nol  one,  for  they  would  all  reason  thus.  If  the 
application  of  water  in  any  manner  be  baptism,  then  the  Bapt)sts  are  bap- 
tized as  well  as  we;  but  if  immersion  tnly  is  bapiism,  ilien  those,  and 
those  only,  who  are  immersed,  are  bapiized,  and  consequently  they  alone 
can  be  saved.  Hence,  those  only  who  practi.<e  immersion  occupy  sale 
ground. 

Baptist — Now,  my  brother,  if  that  Cliristian  only,  who  were  assured  that 
his  eternal  salvation  depended  upon  the  validity  of  his  baptism,  would  take 
safe  ground,  who  observes  the  rite  o/  immersion,  then  it  is  equally  obvi- 
ous, that  those  Christians  only  take  safe  ground  who  practi-e  immersion, 
when  obedieuce  with  its  imporlantresuhs  depend  upon  the  validity  of  their 
baptism.  Now,  if  all  Christians  take  sair  ground  only  when  they  practise 
immersion,  then  it  is  equally  mani'esl,  that  the  Church  takes  sale  ground 
only  when  she  requires  immersion.  Therefore  n-.-ne  should  be  admitted  into 
the  church,  nor  to  the  communion  table,  who  iiave  not  been  immersed. 
My  friend,  the  general  union  and  comniunion  of  the  godij-  is  a  -'consum 
malion  (!evoutly  to  be  wished;"'  but  I  am  confident  that  they  will  never 
unite  only  on  the  saie  side  of  this  contrcn-erted  subject.  And  as  all  believe 
that  iiumers  on  is  baptism,  those  vi^ho  prefer  ur.mn  to  disunion,  will  prac- 
tise that  only.  Now,  from  what  has  bven  said.  I  believe  that  it  is  evident 
that  immersion  is  essential  to  obedience; — es-ential  to  settle  all  doubts  in 
the  mind  of  a  Christian,  about  the  validity  of  Ins  baptism; — essential  to 
the  union  and  conmiunion  of  all  evangelical  denominations;  and  conse- 
quentl}'  essential  to  the  salvation  of  sinners,  for  there  are  millions  of  this 
class  who  can  only  b''  saved,  by  Christians  becoming  united  in  ■'  the  apos- 
tles' doctr  no  and  fellowship."  Finally,  my  dear  brother,  in  conclusion,  I 
would  say.  that  I  am  not  surprised,  that  you  have  cliangpd  your  views  on 
this  interesting  subject,  when  I  call  to  mind,  your  prayerliil  determination, 
at  our  first  int?rview,  to  seek  for  truth,  and  "to  renounce  every  religious 
sentiment,  not  authorized  b}'  the  ward  of  God."  If  you  are  now  satisfied 
what  is  your  Master's  will,  "  happy  are  you,  if  you  do  it."  You  also  have 
the  consolation  of  knowing,  that  you  are  not  alone  in  your  change:  multi- 
tudes who  have  thoroughlv  and  prayerfully  examined  this  subject,  hsvebecn 
conducted  to  the  same  result;*  multitudes  more  are  still  in  doubt  respect- 
ing the  validity  of  their  baptism,  and  probably  will  thus  continue,  until  they 
are  willing  to  take  the  sale  side  of  this  question. 

Now,  my  Chiisiian  brother,  may  God  grant  that  his  word  may  prove,  as 
a  lamp  to  our  feet,  and  as  a  light  to  our  path,  and  guide  us  into  all  truth. 
And  may  it  be  our  fervant  prayer,  that  tlie  time  may  speedily  come,  when 
all  Christians  shall  be  united  in  the  faith,  order,  and  fellowship  of  the 
gospel. 

*  I  have  se.  n  notices  of  the  li;;pMBm  of  some  eight  or  ten  Pedoliaptist  ministers,  sine* 
this  year  coniiiipnetd.  Prof.  Ji  wett  informs  iis,  in  his  work  ou  Baptism,  piihlished  in 
1839,  that  "a  Baptist  minister  of  Western  \'irfrini:i,  within  the  last  four  years,  has 
baptized  ov<r  two  hundied  persons,  who  hail  alreany  h' en  members  of  Pedol)aptist 
churches.  An  ageii  minister,  now  residing  in  ^Mississippi,  has,  at  various  times,  buried 
with  Christ  in  baptism,  more  than  four  hundred  persons  of  this  class,  of  whom  fortt 
were  Pedobaptist  ministehs!" 


COMTEIVTS. 

PKEFACE.-INTRODUCnON 3 

CO.WERSATJON. 

{'rehminaiy  OBSERVATiriNS — Bapiisui  ;iii  in'li>pensul)Ie  prerequisite  to  Church 
CoMiinuuion,  and  t'iiitli  equrtlly  us  iii;liript:nsa!iie  a  prerequisite  to  Bii|itisin,.  ..  .      5 

Subjects  of  Baptism. — Infant  Baptism  not  tauglit  in  llie  C'oniinissidii  of  Cliriit; — 
nor  fuund  in  ilu  Houseltolil  Baptisms; — nor  in  tlie  ALiraliaiiiic  CoVLiianl; — nor 
in  any  pail  of  llie  S>:riptun^s; — nor  in  the  Church,  Unil  llie  close  of  the  stcond 
century; — Objections  urged,  answered,  and  explanations  of  certain  passages 
given, I'i 

Mode*  of  Bapti.sm. — Thi-  signiti  -ation  of  Baptizh  (from  winch  B.iptism  is  derived) 
in  aBci-nained  to  l)t'.  Immersion  : — Kirst,  liy  Classical  .tu,;  Sa.  red  us;ii<  ■;  Second, 
hy  the  fij(Urative  use  of  the  term;  ThirJ,  ny  tlie  places  selecied  for  llic  adminis- 
tration of  thence;  l-'ourth,  iiy  the  pratice  of  the  early  Chrisiijus  and  tliei^hria- 
■tiaii  world  for  1300  years;  and  l-asily,  by  the  change  of  the  rite  of  lininersion 
for  SpriiiKliiig, 28 

Explanaiioii  of  passages  where  ihe  word  Baptizo  is  translated  to  wash;  and  others 
whi're  lue  ordinance  is  luenlioned; — Ubjcctious  to  exclusive  Iiiimersion  an- 
swered,       52 

COiNVERSATION  RESUMED. 

Further  objections  and  questions  answered,  including  among  others,  "Mode  of  Bap- 
tism," Baptism  a  Seal,  etc 09 

John's  Baptism  esseiiti;dly  Christian  Baiitism; — Christ's  Baptism,  its  desii;n;— The 
argument  that  Pouring  is  Baptism  aiiswriod; — Baptism  ascertained  to  be  Ira- 
mersidii,  by  substitution;— in  Baptism,  man  is  applied  to  the  water,  and  not  the 
Water  to  the  man T9 

The  literal  import  of  the  Greek  prepositions  en,  ek,  eis,  used  in  connection  with 
Bai'Tizo,  is  in  favor  of  Immersion,  and  apo  does  nut  militate  against  it; — The 
resemblance  of  Immersion  to  a  Burial; — 'J'he  Baptisis  notguiltv  nf  Bigotry,  nor 
of  iSe.:t::riaiiisni,  nor  of  dividing  the  American  Bible  Society; — Feilobaptistsnot 
blessed  in  the  observance  of  the  rite  of  Sprinkling,  as  Baptists  are  in  the  ob- 
servance of  the  rite  of  Immersion; — The  13aptis!s  tlit-  first,  in  modern  times,  to 
advance  and  defend  the  principles  of  Christ  and  Religions  Liberty,  <tc.; — The 
important  e  which  Baptists  and  Peilohaplisls  respectively  atiacli  to  the  rite  of 
Baplisni; — The  affirmation  th.it  the  Baptists  art-  of  recent  origin  considtri  d,aDd 
abundant  historical  evidence  adduced,  to  show  that  persons  holding  tlieir  distin- 
guishing sentiments,  have  existed  in  everv  age  of  the  Church, 93 

CONVERSATION  RESUMED. 

General  remarks,  about  Close  Communion; — Thedistiiiition  between  Christian  and 
Church  Fellowship, 114 

Restricted  Church  Communion  not  peculiar  to  the  Baptists; — Pedobaptists,  as  well 
as  Baptists,  restrict  their  coniinnnion  to  those  whom  they  deelii  baptized; — Pe- 
dobaptists niorerestriiied  in  theircommunion  thanthe  Baptisrs-.  — Fedobaptism 
the  legitimate  cause  of  what  is  termed  Closf.  Communion; — Sincerity  alonedoes 
not  prove  that  a  man  is  right;— The  practice  of  ih'  AposlUs; — Thi'  Lord's  Sup- 
per a  (Church  ordinance,— The  principles  of  Communion  adopted  by  Pedobap- 
tists sometimes  involve  them  in  the  most  gross  inconsistencies, 117 

The  reason  Baptists  do  not  commune  wi;h  all  whom  they  deem  liaptjzed; — Metho- 
dists violate  their  Rules  of  Discipline  by  practising  Free  or  Mixed  Commun- 
ion;— The  proper  boundary  to  extiTiial  Church  Coniinnnion; — Tract  No.  35; 

Baptists  could  not  commune  with  Methodists,  even  by  their  Rules  of  Disci- 
pline;— The  practice  of  Mixed  Commun.on  will  not   promote,  but  prevent 
u>iioN,  and  perpetuate  disunion; — Its  vei-y  origin  shows  that  it  is  the  offspring 
.    of  disodedicnce 124 

Baptism  not  the  only  pr'requisite  to  Church  Communion;— If  Baptists  were  to 
commune  with  Pedobiiptists,  iliey  mu^t  adopt  principles  thut  would,  if  carried 
out,  annihilate  all  go-pel  ordinances; — Other  obje::tions  answered,  and  explan- 
ations given; — The  duty  of  ;.ll  Christians  to  become  one  in  sentiment  and 
pract.ce; — Pedoliaptists  are  obi  guted  by  Apostolic  example,  to  be  Immersed; — 
Pedoiiai  tists  alone  a^  r  sponsible  for  Close  ConimunioB;— The  duty  of  all  Pe- 
dobaptist  B  'lievers  to  be  Inimerseil, IJg 

*  The  wor  1  mhie  is  sometimes  used  in  this  conversation  to  designate  the  true  import 
«r  action  of  Baptism, 


